SeaBreeze Jetlev, LLC
- Yvonne Rogers
- 4:21-cv-01527
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 5
In the SeaBreeze Jetlev transfer order, Judge Otake granted transfer to California because it would be more convenient and promote justice.
SeaBreeze Jetlev, LLC, SeaBreeze Jet Ski, LLC, H2O Sports Hawaii, LLC, Rochelle Nicole Rodriguez, and the parties and witnesses involved in the related proceedings were affected by the transfer to the Northern District of California.
What happened
In the Matter of the Complaint of SeaBreeze Jetlev, LLC, SeaBreeze Jet Ski, LLC, and H2O Sports Hawaii, LLC involved a request to move a vessel-liability case from Hawaii to the Northern District of California. A related case against these parties was already pending there, and the plaintiff in that case did not oppose the move.
The Hawaii court found that transferring the case would be more convenient for the parties and witnesses and would serve the interests of justice. It emphasized that the related plaintiff had chosen the California court, that relevant parties and lawyers—including a minor child—lived in California, and that travel restrictions during the pandemic made transfer especially compelling.
Judge Jill A. Otake granted the motion to transfer and transferred the action to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The order addressed where the case should proceed, not the underlying liability issues.
The detailed version
- SeaBreeze Jetlev, LLC · No. 4:21-cv-01527
- Yvonne Rogers
- Mar. 3, 2021
Background
SeaBreeze Jetlev, LLC, SeaBreeze Jet Ski, LLC, and H2O Sports Hawaii, LLC filed this limitation-of-liability action concerning two motor vessels. The action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii. The plaintiffs later obtained approval of a stipulation concerning the value of the vessels and posted a letter of undertaking. The court also issued an injunction and notice, and a magistrate judge entered default against potential claimants who had not appeared.
The plaintiffs moved under Supplemental Admiralty Rule F(9) to transfer the action to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. They pointed to a pending related action there, Civil No. 3:20-0703, and represented that Rochelle Nicole Rodriguez, the plaintiff in that action, did not oppose the transfer and did not intend to appear in the Hawaii proceedings.
Transfer analysis
Supplemental Admiralty Rule F(9) permits transfer for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice. The court stated that the relevant considerations are the same as those under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), including the parties’ forum choices and contacts, the locations connected to the claims, litigation costs, witness availability, and access to evidence.
The court found transfer appropriate. It emphasized that Rodriguez had selected the Northern District of California for her action against the plaintiffs and did not oppose transferring this case there. Proceeding in the same venue, and possibly in the same consolidated case, would promote judicial economy. The court also noted that relevant parties, including a minor child, and their counsel resided in California. In the court’s view, ongoing pandemic-related travel restrictions affecting travel to Hawaii made transfer particularly compelling.
Disposition
Judge Jill A. Otake granted the plaintiffs’ Motion to Transfer Proceedings to the Northern District of California and transferred the action to that court. The order decided the proper venue for the proceedings and did not decide the underlying liability issues.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.