Duquette v. 1987 Centurion Barefoot Warrior Style Ski Boat
2:20-cv-02037
E.D. Cal.May 26, 2021Background:
- Sept. 14, 2019 collision on Delta waterways between a 1987 Centurion ski boat (owned by Michael Duquette; piloted by his son Kameron) and a 20-ft Bayliner; multiple injuries and one death.
- Duquette filed a Limitation of Shipowner’s Liability Act action in federal court seeking exoneration or limitation of liability; court issued notice to potential claimants.
- Claimant Dru Jackson filed three filings: a document at ECF No. 19 (styled "Notice of Claim/Answer"), a document at ECF No. 20 (styled "counterclaim"), and a third-party complaint against Kameron Duquette and Dante Lopez.
- Duquette moved to strike (1) the counterclaim in its entirety, (2) the jury demand in the counterclaim/claim, and (3) the jury demand in the third-party complaint.
- Court concluded ECF No. 19 is properly an answer and ECF No. 20 is properly a claim; denied striking the claim/counterclaim but struck the jury demand in the third-party complaint; left the jury demand in the claim intact.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Duquette) | Defendant's Argument (Jackson) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the filing titled "counterclaim" (ECF No. 20) must be struck in a Limitation Act proceeding | Counterclaims against plaintiff-in-limitation are prohibited by the Limitation Act/Rule F and the document should be struck | The filing meets Rule F claim requirements and should be treated as a claim; relabeling suffices | Court refused to strike; recharacterized ECF No. 20 as the claimant's "Claim" and ECF No. 19 as the Answer |
| Whether duplicative/overlapping answer and claim should be struck as confusing | Documents are duplicative and cause confusion; strike the claim | Overlap does not justify striking; striking would improperly decide jury-right dispute | Court declined to strike; left documents in place and clarified their roles |
| Whether the jury demand in the third-party complaint should be struck | Move to strike jury demand in third-party complaint | Jackson did not oppose striking jury demand in third-party complaint | Court granted strike of jury demand in third-party complaint |
| Whether the jury demand in the claimant's claim should be struck | Move to strike jury demand in claimant's claim (no jury in admiralty) | Claimant asserts jury may be available under Newton single-claimant exception; oppose strike | Court denied strike as premature; left jury demand intact pending process to resolve possible Newton exception |
Key Cases Cited
- Fantasy, Inc. v. Fogerty, 984 F.2d 1524 (9th Cir. 1993) (motions to strike standard for immaterial or impertinent matter)
- Whittlestone, Inc. v. Handi-Craft Co., 618 F.3d 970 (9th Cir. 2010) (courts may not decide disputed substantial issues on a motion to strike)
- Neveu v. City of Fresno, 392 F. Supp. 2d 1159 (E.D. Cal. 2005) (motions to strike disfavored; only proper when matter has no bearing)
- Newton v. Shipman, 718 F.2d 959 (9th Cir. 1983) (two jury-related exceptions in limitation actions, including single-claimant rule)
- Wilmington Trust v. U.S. Dist. Court for Dist. of Hawaii, 934 F.2d 1026 (9th Cir. 1991) (waiver of jury right and district court may order separate trials)
- Lewis v. Lewis & Clark Marine, Inc., 531 U.S. 438 (2001) ("saving to suitors" preserves certain remedies, including jury trials)
- Waring v. Clarke, 46 U.S. (5 How.) 441 (U.S. 1847) (historic admiralty/relation to jury rights)