Chad Barnes v. Sea Hawaii Rafting, LLC
889 F.3d 517
| 9th Cir. | 2018Background
- Seaman Chad Barnes was injured in an explosion aboard the M/V Tehani while working for Sea Hawaii Rafting, LLC (SHR) and sought maintenance and cure, damages, and enforcement of a maritime lien against the Tehani; he filed a verified admiralty complaint and defendants answered and litigated for >15 months.
- The district court ruled Barnes entitled to maintenance and that he proved actual maintenance expenses, but declined to set a maintenance rate pretrial and denied multiple summary-judgment motions on the amount.
- SHR and its owner Henry filed bankruptcy shortly before trial; the bankruptcy court partially lifted the automatic stay to allow the district court to assess Barnes’s claims but barred enforcement of any maritime lien.
- The district court dismissed the Tehani in rem, reasoning Barnes’s unverified amended complaint superseded his original verified complaint and therefore divested in rem jurisdiction.
- While appeal was pending, the bankruptcy trustee sold the Tehani, purporting to transfer it free and clear of Barnes’s maritime lien; Barnes appealed and sought relief including a writ of mandamus directing a maintenance award.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court lost in rem jurisdiction over the Tehani because Barnes filed an unverified amended complaint | Barnes: original verified complaint vested in rem jurisdiction; amended unverified pleading does not divest court | Defendants: amended unverified complaint superseded and replaced verified complaint, so in rem jurisdiction lapsed | Court: reversed — in rem jurisdiction, once vested by verified original complaint and appearance/waiver by defendants, was not divested by an unverified amendment; dismissal was error |
| Whether the automatic bankruptcy stay or trustee’s sale could extinguish or bar enforcement of Barnes’s maritime lien | Barnes: maritime liens for maintenance/cure are "sacred" and not subject to §362 stay; bankruptcy court lacked power to extinguish lien absent lienor consent and admiralty process | Trustee: bankruptcy stay barred enforcement and bankruptcy sale cleared liens free and clear | Court: bankruptcy stay did not apply to maritime lien enforcement; bankruptcy court lacked authority to extinguish lien or foreclose it free and clear of admiralty rights without Barn es’s consent; sale did not moot appeal |
| Proper legal standard for awarding maintenance pretrial and appropriate burden of proof | Barnes: admiralty practice and Hall require awarding maintenance based on actual expenses up to reasonable local rate; once seaman shows actual costs, burden shifts to owner to rebut reasonableness | SHR/Henry: factual disputes over reasonable local rate preclude pretrial award; summary-judgment standard should block award | Court: adopts Hall/Incandela burden-shifting approach; summary judgment standard governs pretrial awards but seaman’s evidentiary burden is light — once Barnes proved entitlement and actual costs, defendants bore burden to show unreasonableness; court erred in denying an award for undisputed reasonable amount |
| Whether mandamus is appropriate to compel an immediate maintenance award | Barnes: cannot wait for final appeal; damaged now and district court repeatedly erred and delayed a remedy meant to be prompt | Defendants: appeal interlocutory rulings and standard disputes; denied | Court: mandamus granted directing district court to award maintenance at $34/day (undisputed reasonable rate based on record), subject to upward modification after trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Hall v. Noble Drilling (U.S.) Inc., 242 F.3d 582 (5th Cir.) (pretrial maintenance: actual expenses presumptively reasonable; burden shifts to owner to rebut)
- Madeja v. Olympic Packers, LLC, 310 F.3d 628 (9th Cir. 2002) (requirements for a verified admiralty complaint to invoke in rem jurisdiction)
- United States v. ZP Chandon, 889 F.2d 233 (9th Cir. 1989) (bankruptcy stay does not reach seamen’s maritime liens/wages)
- Incandela v. American Dredging Co., 659 F.2d 11 (2d Cir. 1981) (burden-shifting framework for maintenance rate: seaman proves actual expenditures; owner rebuts as excessive)
- Glynn v. Roy Al Boat Management Corp., 57 F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1995) (summary judgment on maintenance/cure inappropriate where entitlement itself is factually disputed)
- Vaughan v. Atkinson, 369 U.S. 527 (U.S. 1962) (shipowner’s duty to pay maintenance and cure until maximum medical recovery; protective seaman doctrines)
- Vella v. Ford Motor Co., 421 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1975) (admiralty’s remedial procedures are to be administered with flexibility and expediency)
- The John G. Stevens, 170 U.S. 113 (U.S. 1898) (maritime liens’ high priority and long-standing admiralty protection)
- Millennium Seacarriers, Inc. v. Cargill, 419 F.3d 83 (2d Cir.) (bankruptcy court may extinguish maritime liens only where lienors submit to its jurisdiction)