In re Massman, Traylor, Alberici

IN THE MATTER OF: MASSMAN, TRAYLOR, ALBERICI, A JOINT-VENTURE, AND ITS JOINT VENTURERS MASSMAN CONSTRUCTION CO., TRAYLOR BROS., INC., AND ALBERICI CONSTRUCTORS, INC., for Exoneration from or Limitation of Liability.

Case No. 4:12-cv-01665

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION

Dated: February 27, 2013

In Admiralty

AMENDED MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

I. BACKGROUND

This proceeding was instituted on September 14, 2012, upon the filing of a Complaint for Exoneration from or Limitation of Liability (Doc. No. 1, hereinafter "Complaint" or "Compl."), pursuant to the Limitation of Liability Act ("Limitation Act" or "Act"), 46 U.S.C. §§30501-30512, by Plaintiffs Massman, Traylor, Alberici, A Joint-Venture (collectively "Plaintiff" or "MTA"). MTA is a joint venture engaged in bridge construction, with an office in St. Louis, Missouri. (Compl. ¶ 2.) MTA owns two barges—BARGE JSA 1506 and BARGE MCC 442—operated on the Mississippi River within the confines of this district. (Id. ¶¶ 3, 7.)

On March 28, 2012, Andrew Gammon, an employee of MTA, died while working aboard BARGE JSA 1506, located on the Mississippi River north of downtown St. Louis, Missouri. BARGE MCC 442 was tied off to BARGE JSA 1506 at the time of the incident. (Id. ¶¶ 8-9.) The decedent was in the basket of a man lift located on BARGE JSA 1506, when a piling made contact with the man lift, causing it to dislodge from the barge and fall into the Mississippi River, resulting in the decedent's death. (Id. ¶¶ 10.)

MTA alleges that neither the incident nor the decedent's death were "caused or contributed to be caused by any fault, neglect, want of care, or design on the part of Plaintiff BARGE JSA 1506, BARGE MCC 442, or anyone or anything for whom Plaintiff may be responsible." (Id. ¶ 12.) Additionally, MTA alleges that the incident and the decedent's death "were occasioned and occurred without fault of Plaintiff and without the privity or knowledge of Plaintiff." (Id. ¶ 14.)

MTA claims, upon supporting affidavits, that the value of the two barges involved in the incident is, in total, $215,000.00. (Id. ¶ 16.) MTA provided security in this amount in the form of a letter of undertaking provided by MTA's insurer Continental Insurance Company. (Id. ¶ 17 & Exh. C.)

On the same date, MTA filed a Motion for Approval of Stipulation for Costs and Security for Value and Directing Issuance of Notice and Restraining Suits. (Doc. No. 3.) On September 18, 2012, the Court granted the motion, consistent with the dictates of the Limitation Act, enjoining the commencement or further prosecution of any action or proceeding against MTA in connection with the incident. (Doc. No. 8.) The Court, further, issued a notice of the injunction on that date, publication of which was undertaken by attorneys for MTA. (Doc. No. 10.)

MTA filed an Amended Complaint for Exoneration from or Limitation of Liability on October 4, 2012, adding joint venturers Massman Construction Co., Traylor Bros., Inc., and Alberici Constructors, Inc., in their individual capacities, as Plaintiffs. (Doc. No. 11.) (As no injunction was issued in connection with the Amended Complaint, the Court will continue to refer to the entities, together, as "Plaintiff" or "MTA" in this opinion.)

On October 23, 2012, Claimants Tracy Gammon, E.A.G., E.K.G, Edward Gammon, and Carolyn Gammon ("Claimants") filed a Motion to Dismiss Limitation of Liability Complaint and to Dissolve Stay Order. (Doc. No. 12.) Tracy Gammon is the widow of the decedent. E.A.G. andE.K.G. are the surviving minor children of the decedent. Edward and Carolyn Gammon are the surviving parents of the decedent.

On December 10, 2012, Claimants filed: (1) an Answer to the Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 24); (2) a Motion to Increase Limitation Fund (Doc. No. 26); and (3) a Motion to Dissolve Stay and Injunction, with Stipulations (Doc. No. 28). Included within Claimants' Answer (Doc. No. 24) are claims against Plaintiff under the Jones Act, under Missouri's Survivorship Act, under Missouri's Wrongful Death Act, and for negligence. Claimants additionally filed a memorandum of law in support of their Answer on December 10, 2012. (Doc. No. 25.) MTA filed a Motion to Dismiss Claimants' Answer on January 18, 2013. (Doc. No. 35.)

Now pending before the Court, then, are: (1) Claimants' Motion to Dismiss Limitation of Liability Complaint and to Dissolve Stay Order (Doc. No. 12); (2) Claimants' Motion to Increase Limitation Fund (Doc. No. 26); (3) Claimants' Motion to Dissolve Stay and Injunction, with Stipulations (Doc. No. 28); and (4) Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss Claimants' Answer (Doc. No. 35). These motions are fully briefed and ready for disposition.

II. THE COURT'S JURISDICTION AND LIMITED ROLE WITHRESPECT TO THE PENDING MOTIONS

The Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1333(1). As will be discussed in greater detail below, "[w]hile 28 U.S.C. § 1333(1) does grant to the federal district courts exclusive jurisdiction over suits brought pursuant to the Limitation Act, see Ex Parte Green, 286 U.S. 437, 439-40, 52 S.Ct. 602, 76 L.Ed. 1212 (1932), the same statute also 'sav[es] to suits in all cases all other remedies to which they are entitled.'" Riverway Harbor Serv., St. Louis, Inc. v. Bridge & Crane Inspection, Inc., 263 F.3d 786, 791 (8th Cir. 2001) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1333(1)). Hence, "two jurisdictional possibilities" are presented: "shipowners desire exclusive federal jurisdiction tolimit their liability and avoid encountering a jury trial, and claimants seek 'other remedies' such as jury trials in state court." Id. (citing cases).

"Normally, the federal court will resolve this conflict by recognizing an exception in which a claimant acknowledges, through certain stipulations, the shipowner's right to limit the amount of its liability in federal court while preserving the claimant's right to have a jury determine in state court whether the shipowner is liable." Id. (citing cases). "Upon the claimant's filing sufficient stipulations, the admiralty court should allow the claimant to proceed even when the claim exceeds the limitation fund." Magnolia Marine Transp. Co., Inc. v. Laplace Towing Corp., 964 F.2d 1571, 1575 (5th Cir. 1992) (citing cases); see also Langnes v. Green 282 U.S. 531, 541, 51 S.Ct. 243, 75 L.Ed. 520 (1931) ("To retain the cause would be to preserve the right of the shipowner, but to destroy the right of the suitor in the state court to a commonlaw remedy; to remit the cause to the state court would be to preserve the rights of both parties. The mere statement of these diverse results is sufficient to demonstrate the justice of the latter course ....").

The Court has issued an injunction pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. Supp. Rule F(3), which provides: "Upon compliance by the owner with the requirements of subdivision (1) of this rule all claims and proceedings against the owner or the owner's property with respect to the matter in question shall cease. On application of the plaintiff the court shall enjoin the further prosecution of any action or proceeding against the plaintiff or the plaintiff's property with respect to any claim subject to limitation in the action."

The question currently before the Court is a narrow one—whether or not to lift the injunction so that Claimants may proceed with their claims in a forum of their choosing.

The Court's role at this juncture is not to rule on the underlying merits of the parties' claims, and to thereby shape the substance of the litigation going forward. Cf. In re McCarthy Bros. Co. /Clark Bridge, 83 F.3d 821, 826-33 (7th Cir. 1996) (vacating district court's "entirely gratuitous" findings concerning merits where district court had grounds to dissolve injunction); In re Chinese Mar. Trust, Ltd., 478 F.2d 1357, 1361 (2d Cir. 1973) (affirming district court's dissolution of injunction and "[i]n so holding ... intimat[ing] no view as to the merits of the [claimant's] claim or the defenses or counterclaims that may be asserted by the owner against it").¹

Two of the four motions pending before the Court—(1) Claimants' Motion to Dismiss Limitation of Liability Complaint and to Dissolve Stay Order (Doc. No. 12) and (2) Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss Claimants' Answer (Doc. No. 35)—ask the Court to delve into the merits, however. Specifically, they reach matters concerning exclusively (1) Plaintiff's liability and (2) the viability of Claimant's claims, respectively. Both motions will, accordingly, be DENIED without prejudice, as they address matters outside the Court's present purview.²

Remaining for the Court's consideration and disposition, then, are (1) Claimants' Motion to Dissolve Stay and Injunction, with Stipulations (Doc. No. 28) and (2) Claimants' Motion to Increase Limitation Fund (Doc. No. 26). For the reasons discussed below, Claimants' Motion to DissolveStay and Injunction, with Stipulations will be GRANTED, while Claimants' Motion to Increase Limitation Fund will be DENIED without prejudice.

III. DISCUSSION

At base, this case concerns the ability of Claimants—the decedent's survivors—to sue Plaintiff in the forum of their choosing for injuries arising out of the decedent's death. As noted above, federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over admiralty and maritime claims, such as this one, but the jurisdictional statute "sav[es] to suitors in all cases all other remedies to which they are otherwise entitled." 28 U.S.C. § 1333(1). Another statute—the Limitation Act—grants vessel owners the right to seek limited liability in federal court for claims of damage aboard their vessels. See 46 U.S.C. §§ 30501-30512.

"The Act allows a vessel owner to limit liability for damage or injury, occasioned without the owner's privity or knowledge, to the value of the vessel or the owner's interest in the vessel." Lewis v. Lewis & Clark Marine, Inc., 531 U.S. 443, 121 S.Ct. 993, 148 L.Ed.2d 931 (2001). The Act was passed by Congress in 1851 in order "to encourage ship-building...