In the Matter of Oregon Sealark, LLC

Background

Oregon Sealark, LLC and Brusco Tug & Barge, Inc. applied under the Limitation of Liability Act, 46 U.S.C. § 30501 et seq., and Supplemental Rule F for an order limiting potential liability arising from an alleged January 27, 2019 collision. The applicants own the vessel M/V Arthur Brusco. They stated that another vessel crossed in front of it and that the other vessel’s owners, operators, and guests might claim damages and injuries from a collision, although the applicants disputed that a collision occurred.

The applicants sought a monition, which is a court notice requiring claimants to file their claims in the limitation proceeding, and an injunction stopping related claims or proceedings in other courts. They also sought approval of a preliminary stated value for the vessel.

Court’s analysis

The court reviewed the requirements of Supplemental Rule F. It found that the complaint appeared to provide the required information about the voyage, potential claims, the vessel’s value, and pending freight. The applicants had filed an ad interim stipulation of value for $1,250,000, representing the claimed value of the vessel at the end of the voyage, plus six-percent annual interest. They also posted the required $1,000 security for costs.

The court concluded that venue was proper in the Northern District of California because Brusco Tug & Barge, Inc. had been sued in the Superior Court of California for Contra Costa County on claims related to the applicants’ requested limitation of liability. The court also found that the proposed notice procedure satisfied Rule F. The applicants proposed publishing notice in the San Francisco Daily Journal and had provided actual notice to lead counsel for likely claimants.

Under Rule F, once the applicants complied with the other requirements, they were entitled to an injunction prohibiting or ending claims and proceedings against the vessel owner or its property concerning the matter. The court therefore recommended finding that the applicants had complied with Rule F and were entitled to the requested injunction.

Reassignment and disposition

The applicants had consented to a magistrate judge’s jurisdiction, but potential claimants had not. Because injunctive relief is generally considered a case-dispositive matter that a magistrate judge cannot decide without all parties’ consent, Judge Ryu ordered the Clerk to reassign the case to a district judge.

The opinion did not itself grant the application or issue the monition and injunction. Instead, it recommended granting the application and issuing the requested monition and injunction.