1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 IN THE MATTER OF GOLDEN EYE Case No. 19-cv-03402-HSG 2000, LLC 8 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF-IN- LIMITATION’S MOTION FOR 9 DEFAULT JUDGMENT AND PARTIES’ JOINT STIPULATION TO 10 REMAND AND STAY CASE 11 Re: Dkt. Nos. 19, 20
12 13 Plaintiff-in-Limitation Golden Eye 2000, LLC (“Golden Eye”) initiated this admiralty 14 action under the Limitation of Liability Act, 46 U.S.C. § 30511, and Supplemental Admiralty and 15 Maritime Claims Rule F (“Rule F”). Currently before the Court is Golden Eye’s motion for 16 default judgment against all non-appearing claimants. Dkt. No. 19. The parties also filed a joint 17 stipulation requesting that the Court remand and stay this case pending resolution of the state court 18 action. Dkt. No. 20. 19 I. BACKGROUND 20 The Limitation of Liability Act “allows a vessel owner to limit liability for damage or 21 injury, occasioned without the owner’s privity or knowledge, to the value of the vessel or the 22 owner’s interest in the vessel.” Lewis v. Lewis & Clark Marine, Inc., 531 U.S. 438, 446 (2001); 23 46 U.S.C. § 30505. Golden Eye filed this action seeking exoneration from or limitation of liability 24 against all parties for losses, injuries, and/or damages arising out of an incident which occurred on 25 the Golden Eye vessel on or around December 15, 2018. Dkt. No. 1. Having found that Golden 26 Eye complied with the applicable requirements in Rule F(1), the Court ordered the issuance of 27 notice and directed all potential claimants to file any claims and/or answers relating to the incident 1 stayed any other actions against Golden Eye involving related claims. Dkt. No. 9. 2 Between June 24, 2019 and July 15, 2019, Golden Eye published a “Notice to Claimants of 3 Filing of Limitation Proceeding” in the San Francisco Daily Journal, in compliance with Rule 4 F(4). Dkt. No. 11. The notice stated that any potential claimants must file claims with the Court 5 on or before July 22, 2019. Dkt. No. 11-1, Ex. A. Claimant Vitaliy Peshko filed his answer and 6 claim on July 19, 2019. Dkt. No. 12. No other claimant filed an answer and/or claim. Golden 7 Eye filed a motion for entry of default and on September 25, 2019, the clerk entered default as to 8 all non-appearing claimants. Dkt. No. 18. 9 Golden Eye now moves for the Court to enter default judgment against all non-appearing 10 claimants. Dkt. No. 19. Mr. Peshko does not oppose the motion. Dkt. No. 20 at 2. The parties 11 also seek to remand this case to the Alameda County Superior Court. Id. 12 II. MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT 13 When a party has failed to plead or defend against a complaint, the clerk “must enter the 14 party’s default.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). Following an entry of default, the Court may enter a 15 default judgment upon request. Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2). However, the Court’s decision to enter a 16 default judgment is “discretionary.” Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1092 (9th Cir. 1980). 17 When default has been entered, the “factual allegations of the complaint, except those relating to 18 the amount of damages, will be taken as true.” TeleVideo Sys., Inc. v. Heidenthal, 826 F.2d 915, 19 917–18 (9th Cir. 1987). 20 In cases arising under Rule F, if the plaintiff-in-limitation fulfilled its Rule F notice 21 obligations, the court may enter default judgment against any potential claimant who has failed to 22 respond to public notice of a complaint within the mandated period. Matter of Bountiful Oceans, 23 Inc., No. 17CV03625JSWMEJ, 2017 WL 9840304, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2017), report and 24 recommendation adopted, No. C 17-03625 JSW, 2017 WL 9839118 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 2017) 25 (citations omitted). 26 As already discussed, Golden Eye complied with the notice procedures in Rule F. As of 27 the date of this order, no claimant other than Mr. Peshko has filed a claim and/or answer. The 1 III. STIPULATION TO REMAND AND STAY 2 Federal district courts have exclusive jurisdiction over “any civil case of admiralty or 3 maritime jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1333(1). However, 28 U.S.C. § 1333 contains a “savings to 4 suitors clause,” which “sav[es] to suitors in all cases all other remedies to which they are entitled.” 5 Id.; see Lewis, 531 U.S. at 442. To address the apparent tension between the savings to suitors 6 clause and the federal courts’ exclusive admiralty jurisdiction, the Supreme Court has held that the 7 district court has “discretion to stay or dismiss Limitation Act proceedings to allow a suitor to 8 pursue his claims in state court.” Lewis, 531 U.S. at 454. Before allowing a suitor to pursue 9 claims in state court, the district court must be satisfied that “a vessel owner’s right to seek 10 limitation will be protected.” Id. Courts have generally permitted claimants to proceed with their 11 claims in state court where there is only a single claimant (“single claimant exception”), or where 12 the total claims do not exceed the value of the limitation fund. Id. at 451 (citations omitted). 13 Here, the parties filed a stipulation to remand the case to state court under the single 14 claimant exception. Dkt. No. 20. Under that exception, “if only one claim has been filed and 15 ‘nothing appears to suggest the possibility of another claim,’ a district court is required to dissolve 16 its injunction to permit the single claimant to pursue a separate action and jury trial.” In re Ross 17 Island Sand and Gravel, 226 F.3d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 2000). A claimant must also stipulate to 18 the following: “(1) that the value of the limitation fund equals the combined value of the vessel 19 and its cargo; (2) waive the right to claim res judicata based on any judgment rendered against the 20 vessel owner outside of the limitation proceedings; and (3) concede the district court’s exclusive 21 jurisdiction to determine limitation of liability issues.” Id. 22 The Court finds that the parties have made the necessary stipulations to proceed in state 23 court. The parties made the following stipulations: Mr. Peshko is the sole claimant in this action; 24 the value of the limitation fund ($500,000) represents the value of Golden Eye’s interest in the 25 subject vessel; the parties waive the right to claim res judicata based on any decisions, rulings, or 26 judgment of any other court rendered against Golden Eye outside the limitation proceeding before 27 this Court; and Mr. Peshko concedes that the Court has exclusive jurisdiction to determine the 1 Accordingly, the Court dissolves the injunction against any state court proceedings 2 involving claims related to this action and GRANTS the parties’ joint stipulation to remand the 3 case. This case will be held in abeyance until judgment is rendered in the state court proceeding 4 or an issue within the Court’s exclusive admiralty jurisdiction arises. 5 IV. CONCLUSION 6 For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Golden Eye’s motion for default judgment 7 against non-appearing claimants.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 IN THE MATTER OF GOLDEN EYE Case No. 19-cv-03402-HSG 2000, LLC 8 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF-IN- LIMITATION’S MOTION FOR 9 DEFAULT JUDGMENT AND PARTIES’ JOINT STIPULATION TO 10 REMAND AND STAY CASE 11 Re: Dkt. Nos. 19, 20
12 13 Plaintiff-in-Limitation Golden Eye 2000, LLC (“Golden Eye”) initiated this admiralty 14 action under the Limitation of Liability Act, 46 U.S.C. § 30511, and Supplemental Admiralty and 15 Maritime Claims Rule F (“Rule F”). Currently before the Court is Golden Eye’s motion for 16 default judgment against all non-appearing claimants. Dkt. No. 19. The parties also filed a joint 17 stipulation requesting that the Court remand and stay this case pending resolution of the state court 18 action. Dkt. No. 20. 19 I. BACKGROUND 20 The Limitation of Liability Act “allows a vessel owner to limit liability for damage or 21 injury, occasioned without the owner’s privity or knowledge, to the value of the vessel or the 22 owner’s interest in the vessel.” Lewis v. Lewis & Clark Marine, Inc., 531 U.S. 438, 446 (2001); 23 46 U.S.C. § 30505. Golden Eye filed this action seeking exoneration from or limitation of liability 24 against all parties for losses, injuries, and/or damages arising out of an incident which occurred on 25 the Golden Eye vessel on or around December 15, 2018. Dkt. No. 1. Having found that Golden 26 Eye complied with the applicable requirements in Rule F(1), the Court ordered the issuance of 27 notice and directed all potential claimants to file any claims and/or answers relating to the incident 1 stayed any other actions against Golden Eye involving related claims. Dkt. No. 9. 2 Between June 24, 2019 and July 15, 2019, Golden Eye published a “Notice to Claimants of 3 Filing of Limitation Proceeding” in the San Francisco Daily Journal, in compliance with Rule 4 F(4). Dkt. No. 11. The notice stated that any potential claimants must file claims with the Court 5 on or before July 22, 2019. Dkt. No. 11-1, Ex. A. Claimant Vitaliy Peshko filed his answer and 6 claim on July 19, 2019. Dkt. No. 12. No other claimant filed an answer and/or claim. Golden 7 Eye filed a motion for entry of default and on September 25, 2019, the clerk entered default as to 8 all non-appearing claimants. Dkt. No. 18. 9 Golden Eye now moves for the Court to enter default judgment against all non-appearing 10 claimants. Dkt. No. 19. Mr. Peshko does not oppose the motion. Dkt. No. 20 at 2. The parties 11 also seek to remand this case to the Alameda County Superior Court. Id. 12 II. MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT 13 When a party has failed to plead or defend against a complaint, the clerk “must enter the 14 party’s default.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). Following an entry of default, the Court may enter a 15 default judgment upon request. Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2). However, the Court’s decision to enter a 16 default judgment is “discretionary.” Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1092 (9th Cir. 1980). 17 When default has been entered, the “factual allegations of the complaint, except those relating to 18 the amount of damages, will be taken as true.” TeleVideo Sys., Inc. v. Heidenthal, 826 F.2d 915, 19 917–18 (9th Cir. 1987). 20 In cases arising under Rule F, if the plaintiff-in-limitation fulfilled its Rule F notice 21 obligations, the court may enter default judgment against any potential claimant who has failed to 22 respond to public notice of a complaint within the mandated period. Matter of Bountiful Oceans, 23 Inc., No. 17CV03625JSWMEJ, 2017 WL 9840304, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2017), report and 24 recommendation adopted, No. C 17-03625 JSW, 2017 WL 9839118 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 2017) 25 (citations omitted). 26 As already discussed, Golden Eye complied with the notice procedures in Rule F. As of 27 the date of this order, no claimant other than Mr. Peshko has filed a claim and/or answer. The 1 III. STIPULATION TO REMAND AND STAY 2 Federal district courts have exclusive jurisdiction over “any civil case of admiralty or 3 maritime jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1333(1). However, 28 U.S.C. § 1333 contains a “savings to 4 suitors clause,” which “sav[es] to suitors in all cases all other remedies to which they are entitled.” 5 Id.; see Lewis, 531 U.S. at 442. To address the apparent tension between the savings to suitors 6 clause and the federal courts’ exclusive admiralty jurisdiction, the Supreme Court has held that the 7 district court has “discretion to stay or dismiss Limitation Act proceedings to allow a suitor to 8 pursue his claims in state court.” Lewis, 531 U.S. at 454. Before allowing a suitor to pursue 9 claims in state court, the district court must be satisfied that “a vessel owner’s right to seek 10 limitation will be protected.” Id. Courts have generally permitted claimants to proceed with their 11 claims in state court where there is only a single claimant (“single claimant exception”), or where 12 the total claims do not exceed the value of the limitation fund. Id. at 451 (citations omitted). 13 Here, the parties filed a stipulation to remand the case to state court under the single 14 claimant exception. Dkt. No. 20. Under that exception, “if only one claim has been filed and 15 ‘nothing appears to suggest the possibility of another claim,’ a district court is required to dissolve 16 its injunction to permit the single claimant to pursue a separate action and jury trial.” In re Ross 17 Island Sand and Gravel, 226 F.3d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 2000). A claimant must also stipulate to 18 the following: “(1) that the value of the limitation fund equals the combined value of the vessel 19 and its cargo; (2) waive the right to claim res judicata based on any judgment rendered against the 20 vessel owner outside of the limitation proceedings; and (3) concede the district court’s exclusive 21 jurisdiction to determine limitation of liability issues.” Id. 22 The Court finds that the parties have made the necessary stipulations to proceed in state 23 court. The parties made the following stipulations: Mr. Peshko is the sole claimant in this action; 24 the value of the limitation fund ($500,000) represents the value of Golden Eye’s interest in the 25 subject vessel; the parties waive the right to claim res judicata based on any decisions, rulings, or 26 judgment of any other court rendered against Golden Eye outside the limitation proceeding before 27 this Court; and Mr. Peshko concedes that the Court has exclusive jurisdiction to determine the 1 Accordingly, the Court dissolves the injunction against any state court proceedings 2 involving claims related to this action and GRANTS the parties’ joint stipulation to remand the 3 case. This case will be held in abeyance until judgment is rendered in the state court proceeding 4 or an issue within the Court’s exclusive admiralty jurisdiction arises. 5 IV. CONCLUSION 6 For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Golden Eye’s motion for default judgment 7 against non-appearing claimants. Dkt. No. 19. It is further ordered that: 8 1. The default of all persons who may have sustained any and all loss or damage of 9 any nature whatsoever occasioned by or resulting from or in any way consequent upon the 10 aforesaid events, on or about December 15, 2018, involving the vessel GOLDEN EYE 2000 11 described above, or by reason of any other matters arising out of the above-described events, and 12 have failed to file claims in this action in accordance with the Court-ordered deadlines that have 13 now passed, is confirmed, noted, and entered; and 14 2. All such persons are barred and permanently restrained from filing and/or 15 prosecuting in any court, all claims which might properly have been filed in this limitation 16 proceeding; and 17 3. Default judgment is hereby entered for Plaintiff-in-Limitation GOLDEN EYE 18 2000, LLC against all persons that have failed to file claims in this action in accordance with the 19 Court-ordered deadlines that have now passed, and pursuant to said judgment Plaintiff-in- 20 Limitation be exonerated from liability on all future claims for loss, injury, expense, or damage 21 arising out of the aforesaid events, on or about December 15, 2018, involving the vessel GOLDEN 22 EYE 2000 described above, claimed by any and/or all such persons. 23 The Clerk is directed to enter judgment for Plaintiff-in-Limitation against the non- 24 appearing claimants according to the above. 25 // 26 // 27 // 1 The Court further GRANTS the parties’ joint stipulation. Dkt. No. 20. The Court 2 ORDERS this case REMANDED to the California Superior Court for Alameda County. This 3 || case is hereby STAYED and the parties are DIRECTED to submit a joint status report every 180 4 || days updating the Court on the status of the state court proceeding. The Clerk is directed remand 5 || the case and administratively close the file. 6 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 || Dated: 11/1/2019 ° eon S. GILLIAM, JR. / 10 United States District Judge 11 12
15 16
= 17
Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28