HMS Jimmy Wayne LLC

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. California
DecidedJuly 2, 2020
Docket3:20-cv-01070
StatusUnknown

This text of HMS Jimmy Wayne LLC (HMS Jimmy Wayne LLC) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
HMS Jimmy Wayne LLC, (S.D. Cal. 2020).

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 In the Matter of the Complaint of Case No.: 3:20-cv-01070-WQH-AGS HMS JIMMY WAYNE LLC and 12 BJOERN THOMAS NORHEIM ORDER 13 as Owners of One 50.4 foot Sea Ray Model Fifty Four Power 14 Vessel Documented as The 15 “Valhalla III” Bearing Official Document Number 1116042, 16 Plaintiffs-in-Limitation, 17 HAYES, Judge: 18 The matter pending before the Court is the Ex Parte Application for Approval of 19 Plaintiff’s Ad Interim Stipulation of Value filed by Plaintiffs-in-Limitation HMS Jimmy 20 Wayne LLC and Bjoern Thomas Norheim. (ECF No. 2). 21 I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 22 On June 11, 2020, Plaintiffs-in-Limitation HMS Jimmy Wayne LLC and Bjoern 23 Thomas Norheim filed a Complaint, as owners of the 50.4-foot Sea Ray Model Fifty Four 24 Power Vessel documented as the “Valhalla III,” bearing Document Number 1116042, and 25 her engines, tackle, appurtenances, etc. (the “Vessel”), for exoneration from or limitation 26 of liability, civil and maritime, pursuant to the Limitation of Liability Act, 46 U.S.C. § 27 30501 et seq., and within the meaning of Rule 9(h) and Supplemental Rule F of the Federal 28 1 Rules of Civil Procedure, for any and all claims or damages or losses occasioned or 2 incurred, or alleged to have been occasioned or incurred, from the collision with the 1995 3 Catalina 36-foot sloop sail boat documented under the name “Spirit of Constellation,” 4 bearing Document Number 1145125, on or about November 11, 2019 at the mouth of San 5 Diego Bay, as set forth and alleged in the Complaint. See ECF No. 1. 6 On the same day, Plaintiffs-in-Limitation have filed an Ex Parte Application for 7 Approval of Plaintiff’s Ad Interim Stipulation of Value, moving for an order 8 a. Approving PLAINTIFFS-IN-LIMITATION’s stipulation of value; b. Directing notice; 9 c. Issuing injunctive relief restraining all persons from prosecuting any 10 claims for any act, matter or thing, loss, damage, injury or forfeiture, done, occasioned or incurred by reason of collision of November 10, 2019; 11 d. Requiring that any and all persons who wish to assert claims arising out of 12 the collision on November 10, 2019, file their respective claims with the Clerk of this Court at the United States Courthouse, Southern District of 13 California, 333 West Broadway, Suite 420. San Diego, CA 92101 on or 14 before _______________, 2020 by 5 p.m. in writing, under oath and serving those claims on the PLAINTIFFS-IN-LIMITATION’s attorneys, 15 David R. Hunt, Esq., of Anderson, McPharlin & Conners LLP, 707 16 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 4000, Los Angeles, CA 90017, and, should they wish to contest PLAINTIFFS-IN-LIMITATION’s exoneration from or 17 limitation of liability to file an answer or other responsive pleading to the 18 Complaint for Exoneration From or Limitation of Liability with the Clerk of Court and mail the answer to PLAINTIFFS-IN-LIMITATION’s 19 attorneys on or before the same date; and 20 e. Requiring that public notice of the action and the need to file claims and answers, or other responsive pleadings, be published substantially in the 21 form of Exhibit “A” hereto in the San Diego Union-Tribune newspaper, 22 once a week for four consecutive weeks before the time runs to file claims or answers and that a copy of the notice be served at least 30 days before 23 the claim and answer filing deadline on the respective attorneys for all 24 persons who, at the time of making this Order, have filed libels or commenced suits for any act, matter or thing, loss, damage, injury or 25 forfeiture, done, occasioned or incurred by reason of the collision of 26 November 10, 2019, together with a copy of the Order issued on this application; and 27 f. Enjoining the commencement or prosecution of any and all other suits, 28 actions or proceedings of any kind whatsoever against the Vessel and/or 1 PLAINTIFFS-IN-LIMITATION and the Vessel’s operator Paul W. Chapman (see, In re Complaint of Paradise Holdings, Inc., 795 F.2d 756 2 (1986)) with respect to any claim arising out of any act, matter or thing, 3 loss, damage, injury or forfeiture, done, occasioned or incurred by reason of the collision on November 10, 2019, and staying and restraining any 4 prior suits filed until the hearing and determination of this proceeding; and 5 g. Directing that this Order may be served as a restraining order through the United States Postal Service by mailing a conformed copy thereof to the 6 person or persons to be restrained, or to their respective attorneys, or 7 alternatively by hand.

8 (ECF No. 2 at 2-3). 9 II. DISCUSSION 10 Plaintiffs-in-Limitation has submitted an Affidavit by Plaintiff-in-Limitation Bjoern 11 Thomas Norheim, stating that “[t]he market value of the Vessel at the time of the incident 12 and thereafter, along with all pending equipment and freight, was and is three hundred 13 thousand dollars ($300,000.00).” (ECF No. 2-2 at 2). Plaintiffs-in-Limitation have 14 submitted an Ad Interim Stipulation of Value and Costs and Letter of Undertaking as 15 security for the Vessel, in the amount of “three hundred thousand and five hundred dollars 16 ($300,500.00), which is the sum of ad interim stipulated value of the Vessel and the costs 17 required to be deposited by court rule ….” (ECF No. 2-3 at 2) (emphasis in original). 18 Rather than depositing a sum equal to the Vessel’s value with the Court, Plaintiffs-in- 19 Limitation stipulated the willingness to pay up to $300,000.00 for any liability in this 20 action, with whatever cost, interest, and other sums the Court finds necessary to carry out 21 the statute. The Supreme Court has approved the use of this kind of security in limitation 22 actions. See Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co. of Hartford v. S. Pac. Co., 273 U.S. 207, 218-19 23 (1927) (“Whenever a stipulation is taken in an admiralty suit, for the property subjected to 24 legal process and condemnation, the stipulation is deemed a mere substitute for the thing 25 itself, and the stipulators liable to the exercise of all those authorities on the part of the 26 court, which it could properly exercise, if the thing itself were still in its custody.” (quoting 27 The Palmyra, 25 U.S. (12 Wheat.) 1, 10 (1827))). 28 1 It appears that claims will be made against Plaintiffs-in-Limitation for losses or 2 damages arising out of, or in some manner connected with the matters set forth in the 3 Complaint. 4 Plaintiffs-in-Limitation will now deposit with this Court, for the benefit of the 5 claimants, the sum of Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00) as security for court costs under 6 Local Civil Rule F.l. 7 Plaintiffs-in-Limitation have complied with Supplemental Admiralty Rule F(l) 8 requiring posting security for the Vessel and any pending freight. This ruling is without 9 prejudice to the due appraisal of Plaintiffs-in-Limitation’s interest in the Vessel and 10 pending freight, and any claimant’s demand the deposit or security be increased in 11 accordance with Supplemental Admiralty Rule F(7). Pursuant to Rule F(7), any claimants 12 who may properly become a party hereto may contest the amount or value of Plaintiffs-in- 13 Limitation’s interest in the subject Vessel, and its pending freight, and may move the Court 14 for due appraisal of said interest and may apply to have the amount of said stipulation 15 increased or diminished as the case may be. 16 III. CONCLUSION 17 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Ex Parte Application for Approval of Plaintiff’s 18 Ad Interim Stipulation of Value filed by Plaintiffs-in-Limitation HMS Jimmy Wayne LLC 19 and Bjoern Thomas Norheim (ECF No. 2) is GRANTED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

The Palmyra
25 U.S. 1 (Supreme Court, 1827)
Paradise Holdings, Inc. v. Paradise Holdings, Inc.
795 F.2d 756 (Ninth Circuit, 1986)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
HMS Jimmy Wayne LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hms-jimmy-wayne-llc-casd-2020.