LANCE M. AFRICK, District Judge
Claimant, Terrence Washington ("Washington"), has filed a motion to lift the stay in this limitation of liability proceeding so that he may prosecute his personal injury action in state court. Petitioner-in-limitation, Can Do, Inc. I ("Can Do"), opposes the motion. For the following reasons, the motion to lift the stay is DENIED.
Rec. Doc. No. 10.
On November 19, 2001, Washington, an employee of Art Catering, Inc., was working aboard the OCEAN CONCORD, a semi-submersible mobile offshore drilling rig operating in the Gulf of Mexico off the coast of Louisiana. The OCEAN CONCORD was owned and operated by Diamond Offshore Drilling, Inc., Diamond Offshore Team Solutions, Inc., Diamond Offshore Company, and Diamond Offshore
Rec. Doc. No. 7.
(USA), Inc. (collectively "the Diamond claimants"). On that date, the M/V ELIZABETH ADAMS, which was owned and operated by Can Do, was also operating in the Gulf of Mexico and it was assisting the movement of the OCEAN CONCORD. The M/V ELIZABETH ADAMS collided with the OCEAN CONCORD allegedly causing property damage to the OCEAN CONCORD and personal injuries to Washington.
Rec. Doc. No. 7.
Rec. Doc. No. 7.
Rec. Doc. Nos. 7 and 8.
On January 9, 2002, Can Do filed this complaint seeking limitation of liability. The petitioner-in-limitation also filed a letter of undertaking and an ad interim stipulation for value stipulating that the market value of the M/V ELIZABETH ADAMS and her pending freight was approximately $5,850,000.00. The Court issued an order approving the petitioners' declaration of value and staying and restraining the further prosecution of any suits previously filed or to be filed arising out of the marine casualty at issue.
Rec. Doc. No. 1.
Rec. Doc. Nos. 2 and 3.
Rec. Doc. No. 4.
Washington filed a claim for personal injuries alleging that he suffered damages in the amount of $5,000,000.00. The Diamond claimants filed a claim seeking damages for property damage to the OCEAN CONCORD, evacuation costs, fuel costs, down time, and other related costs, in the amount of $1,021,443.90.
Doc. No. 8.
Rec. Doc. No. 7.
Claimant, Washington, seeks to lift the stay on the basis that this is a single claim limitation proceeding and he has executed appropriate stipulations. Petitioner-in-limitation, Can Do, opposes the motion arguing that this is not a single claimant case because claims were filed by four separate Diamond entities in this limitation action.
In order for the stay to be lifted in a limitation proceeding so that the claimant may prosecute his claim in state court, "the claimant must stipulate that the admiralty court reserves exclusive jurisdiction to determine all issues related to the shipowner's right to limit liability" and "the claimant must stipulate that no judgment will be asserted against the shipowner to the extent that it exceeds the value of the limitation fund." Texaco, Inc. v. Williams, 47 F.3d 765, 767 (5th cir.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 907, 116 S.Ct. 275, 133 L.Ed.2d 196 (1995).
In Odeco Oil and Gas Company, Drilling Division v. Bonnette, 74 F.3d 671, 674 (5th Cir. 1996), the court held that:
In mediating between the right of shipowners to limit their liability in federal court and the rights of claimants to sue in the forum of their choice, federal courts have developed two instances in which a district court must allow a state court action to proceed: (1) when the total amount of the claims does not exceed the shipowner's declared value of the vessel and its freight, and (2) when
all claimants stipulate that the federal court has exclusive jurisdiction over the limitation proceeding, and that the claimants will not seek to enforce a damage award greater than the value of the ship and its freight until the shipowner's right to' limitation has been determined by the federal court. [Citation omitted].
In the instant case, neither condition has been satisfied. The total amount of the claims, $6,021,443.90, exceeds the shipowner's declared value of the vessel and its pending freight, $5,850,000.00. While claimant, Washington, has executed the requisite stipulations, the Diamond claimants have not.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the motion of claimant, Terrence Washington, to lift the stay is DENIED.