In re: Complaint of ALOHA JETSKI, LLC
1:12-cv-00548
D. Haw.Nov 28, 2012Background
- Limitation Plaintiff Aloha Jetski LLC seeks exoneration and limitation of liability under 46 U.S.C. § 30505 for August 5, 2012 jet ski incident.
- Two jet skis (2010 Yamaha VX110 Deluxe and 2011 Yamaha VX110 Deluxe) were involved; combined fair market value was $11,000; plaintiff tendered $11,500 to the court.
- Incident involved Tyson Dagley operating a jet ski colliding with Kristin Fonseca’s jet ski, resulting in Fonseca’s death; Limitation Plaintiff rented the jet skis and is named defendants along with Glenn Cohen.
- Cohen is Limitation Plaintiff’s sole member/manager; Limitation Plaintiff argues Cohen is an “owner” entitled to stay of proceedings under the Limitation Act and Rule F(3).
- Claimants object to a broad injunction, arguing it should be limited to Limitation Plaintiff and not extend to Cohen or other parties; issue is whether an injunction can cover non-owners.
- Court must decide whether to grant in part the injunction, limiting it to the owners of the vessels, or extend broader protections.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Cohen qualifies as an “owner” under the Limitation Act. | Cohen is Limitation Plaintiff’s sole member and operator; he has control and responsibility for the vessels. | Ownership should be limited to the vessel titleholder; Cohen’s personal negligence in the state action is irrelevant to “owner” status. | Cohen is an “owner” entitled to stay under the Act. |
| Whether the injunction should extend to non-owners beyond Limitation Plaintiff and Cohen. | Paradise Holdings supports broad stay to protect insurance and limitation proceedings. | Injunctive stay should be limited to owners; extending to non-owners undermines purposes of the Act. | Injunction limited to Limitation Plaintiff and Cohen only. |
| Whether the court may enjoin state court actions against the vessel owners and related parties pending limitation proceedings. | Rule F(3) allows injunction of claims against owner and owner’s property to protect limitation proceedings. | Injunction should avoid overbreadth and preserve other remedies against non-owners. | Injunction granted as to Limitation Plaintiff and Cohen; others not enjoined. |
| Whether limiting the injunction to the owners best serves the purposes of the Limitation Act. | Broad stay safeguards insurance and orderly limitation fund distribution. | Broad stay would conflict with the Act’s scope and individual liability in state court. | Limitation Act purposes served by limiting injunction to the vessel owners. |
Key Cases Cited
- Admiral Towing Co. v. Woolen, 290 F.2d 641 (9th Cir. 1961) (owner defined broadly; liable grounds include maintenance and operation)
- Flink v. Paladini, 279 U.S. 59 (U.S. 1929) (ownership word interpreted liberally)
- Complaint of Nobles, 842 F. Supp. 1430 (N.D. Fla. 1993) (title ownership not dispositive; liberal interpretation of 'owner')
- Paradise Holdings, Inc., 795 F.2d 756 (9th Cir. 1986) (district court may stay non-owner captain actions to protect limitation process and insurance)
- Olympic Towing Corp. v. Nebel Towing Co., 419 F.2d 230 (5th Cir. 1969) (purpose of the Act includes protecting the limitation process and insurance)
- In re City of New York, 522 F.3d 279 (2d Cir. 2008) (owner's privity or knowledge limits liability; protective scope of limitation)