Duquette v. 1987 Centurion Barefoot Warrior Style Ski Boat ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 IN ADMIRALTY 11 12 | Inthe matter of the Complaint of No. 2:20-cv-02037-KJM-KJN 13 Michael John Duquette as the alleged owner of ORDER 14 a certain 1987 Centurion “Barefoot Warrior Style” Ski Boat bearing hull identification 15 number CF19042JK and her engines, tackle, appurtenances, etc. 16 For exoneration from, or limitation of, liability. 17 18 19 Michael Duquette allegedly owns a ski boat that collided with another boat in San Joaquin 20 | County, an accident that is now the subject of litigation in California State Court. See Compl. 21 | §§| 10-14, ECF No. 1; Gregory David Erickson v. Kameron Michael Duquette, No. STK-UPI- 22 | 2020-3526 (San Joaquin Cty. Sup. Ct. filed Mar. 11, 2020); Rodney W. Blake v. Kameron 23 | Michael Duquette, No. MSC20-01400 (Contra Costa Cty. Sup. Ct. filed July 13, 2020).! He filed 24 | this action in admiralty for limitation of liability under the Limitation of Shipowner’s Liability 25 | Act, 46 U.S.C. § 30501. ' The court grants the request for judicial notice of the complaints filed in California Superior Court. See, e.g., Frlekin v. Apple, Inc.,___ F.3d ___, No. 15-17382, 2020 WL 6373426, at *3 n.1 (9th Cir. Sept. 2, 2020). 1 A primary purpose of the Limitation Act is to create a venue for determining liabilities for 2 “marine casualties” when the value of the claims exceeds the value of the vessel. Anderson v. 3 Nadon, 360 F.2d 53, 57 (9th Cir. 1966). It “allows a vessel owner to limit liability for damage or 4 injury, occasioned without the owner’s privity or knowledge, to the value of the vessel or the 5 owner’s interest in the vessel.” Lewis v. Lewis & Clark Marine, Inc., 531 U.S. 438, 446 (2001). 6 But the Limitation Act is “not a model of clarity.” Id. at 447. Indeed, the Supreme Court found 7 in the late Nineteenth Century that the Act was “incapable of execution” without “further 8 instructions” and thus designed and adopted a set of procedures now found in the Supplemental 9 Rules of Admiralty. See id. (citing Norwich & N.Y. Transp. Co. v. Wright, 13 Wall. 104, 121 10 (U.S. 1871)). Under those rules, the owner of a vessel who wishes to invoke the protections of 11 the Limitaiton Act files an action in federal district court. See id. at 447–48. The district court 12 then secures the value of the vessel or the owner’s interest in the vessel, orders all claimants to 13 appear, and “enjoins the prosecution of other actions with respect to the claims.” Id. at 448. The 14 court adjudicates these claims without a jury, determines whether the vessel owner is liable and 15 may limit liability, determines the validity of the claims, and distributes the limited fund if 16 appropriate. See id. 17 The specific procedures Mr. Duquette invokes are found in Supplemental Admiralty and 18 Maritime Claims Rule F. Mr. Duquette moves ex parte for orders required by that Rule. That 19 Rule includes four basic requirements. 20 First, the action must be filed in a “district in which the vessel has been attached or 21 arrested to answer for any claim with respect to which the plaintiff seeks to limit liability; or, if 22 the vessel has not been attached or arrested, then in any district in which the owner has been sued 23 with respect to any such claim.” Rule F(9). Here, venue is appropriate in this District because 24 the ski boat is currently within this District and at least one claim has been filed in a state court 25 within this District. See Compl. ¶¶ 2–4. 26 Second, Rule F imposes pleading requirements. The complaint must state (1) “the facts 27 on the basis of which the right to limit liability is asserted and all facts necessary to enable the 28 court to determine the amount to which the owner’s liability shall be limited”; (2) “the voyage if 1 any, on which the demands sought to be limited arose, with the date and place of its termination”; 2 (3) “the amount of all demands . . . arising on that voyage, so far as known to the plaintiff, and 3 what actions and proceedings, if any, are pending thereon”; (4) “whether the vessel was damaged, 4 lost, or abandoned, and, if so, when and where”; (5) “the value of the vessel at the close of the 5 voyage or, in case of wreck, the value of her wreckage, strippings, or proceeds, if any, and where 6 and in whose possession they are”; and (6) “the amount of any pending freight recovered or 7 recoverable.” Rule F(2). The complaint here satisfies these requirements. It describes the 8 accident, the claims, the estimated value of those claims, Mr. Duquette’s alleged interests and 9 liabilities, the estimated value of the ski boat, and its current location. See Compl. ¶¶ 8–39. 10 Third, the plaintiff must deposit a sum equal to the vessel’s value (or the owner’s interest 11 in the vessel) as security. Rule F(1). Alternatively, the owner may file a stipulation of value. In 12 re Oregon Sealark, LLC, No. 19-CV-04305-DMR, 2019 WL 5538938, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 28, 13 2019) (citing Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co. of Hartford v. S. Pac. Co., 273 U.S. 207, 212 (1927)). 14 The security is not a final estimate of the vessel’s value; a claimant may move to increase the 15 amount. See Rule F(7); E.D. Cal. L.R. 520(a). Mr. Duquette estimates the value of his interest at 16 $5,000 or less—he contends not to have any interest at all, see Compl. ¶¶ 34—and he has filed a 17 compliant stipulation, see ECF No. 3. 18 Fourth, a plaintiff must give “security for costs and . . . for interest at the rate of 6 percent 19 per annum from the date of the security.” Rule F(1). This court’s Local Rules set the value of the 20 security at $1,000. See E.D. Cal. L.R. 520(b). Mr. Duquette’s stipulation includes a letter of 21 undertaking from Progressive Direct Insuance Company agreeing to satisfy these amounts. See 22 ECF No. 3. The court approves the letter of undertaking. 23 If the plaintiff complies with these requirements, the court issues a “monition,” i.e., gives 24 notice to anyone with potential claims that those claims must be adjudicated in the issuing federal 25 district court and directing them to submit their claims within 30 days or a later period. See Rule 26 F(4). A notice must be published weekly for at least four weeks in an appropriate newspaper, and 27 the plaintiff must also “mail a copy of the notice to every person known to have made any claim.” 28 Id. Mr. Duquette has proposed giving notice in the Stockton Record and the Sacramento Daily 1 Recorder for the periods required by Rule F(4) and requiring claims be filed within thirty days. 2 See Ex Parte App. at 10, ECF No. 6. The court adopts that recommendation. 3 Finally, a plaintiff who complies with these requirements is entitled to an injunction 4 “prohibiting or ending ‘all claims and proceedings against the owner or the owner’s property with 5 respect to the matter in question.’” In re Oregon Sealark, LLC, 2019 WL 5538938, at *3 (quoting 6 Rule F(3)). Mr. Duquette has proposed an appropriate injunction. See ECF No. 6-2. 7 The court accordingly grants the ex parte motion. The orders requested in Mr. 8 Duquette’s ex parte motion will issue under separate cover. 9 This order resolves ECF No. 6. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 DATED: November 30, 2020.