BATON ROUGE – A federal judge has granted a plaintiff’s motion to potentially bifurcate legal proceedings concerning a maritime accident between both a state court and a federal court.
On June 26, U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana Judge Brian A. Jackson granted a motion to bifurcate from claimant Juan Deville, in a federal court action against Aries Marine Corporation. It preserves Deville’s right to a state court jury trial, while also preserving Aries Marine Corporation’s right to a federal bench trial under the Limitation of Liability Act.
“Deville was working aboard the MAT Aries Marine 19 when a crane operator failed to control a load and struck Deville, causing serious injuries. Deville filed a lawsuit in the Nineteenth Judicial District Court for East Baton Rouge Parish on Aug. 3, 2023. Petitioner Aries Marine Corporation responded to the state court lawsuit by filing this action, seeking to limit its liability under the Limitation of Liability Act to $13,970,000. Thereafter, all suits arising from the accident were stayed by order of this Court pending the limitation action,” Jackson said.
Jackson explained that the present motion for bifurcation comes in the context of a limitation action which raises issues not found in some other litigation settings. The Limitation of Liability Act allows a vessel owner facing potential liability for a maritime accident to file a petition in federal court to limit its liability.
Jackson added that if the shipowner did not have “privity or knowledge” of the vessel’s fault relative to the accident in question, the owner’s liability is limited to “the amount or value of the interest of such owner in such vessel, and her freight then pending.” If, at the limitation trial, “liability is limited, [the Court] distributes the limited fund[s] among the claimants.”
On the other hand, Jackson said that the “saving-to-suitors clause,” gives Deville “the option to request a state jury trial for personal injury claims involving the Jones Act and general maritime law.” (citing 28 U.S.C. Section 1333) In this case, Deville exercised that right and chose the option to sue in state court and requested a jury both there and in this proceeding.
What is “saved” to the suitor in Section 1333 is not only the right to bring a maritime case in a non-maritime court (state court or federal court at law, assuming an alternative basis for federal jurisdiction), but the right of the litigants to take advantage of the procedural differences between a federal court “in admiralty” and that of the non-maritime court. Regardless of the court in which the case is brought, maritime substantive law is applicable. There is thus a “recurring and inherent conflict” between the exclusive jurisdiction vested in admiralty courts by the Limitation of Liability Act and the common law remedies embodied in the saving to suitors clause of 28 U.S.C. Section 1333, Jackson said.
“Deville seeks a partial bifurcation of the issues here. He asks that the Court hold a bench trial, as required by admiralty law, on the issues of exoneration, limitation, and apportionment of fault, and allow him to pursue only his damages claim in state court if limitation is denied. By deciding exoneration, limitation and apportionment first and while the state court action is stayed, petitioner’s limitation rights would be protected. Petitioner responds that to proceed in state court, Deville needs a stipulation signed by all claimants ‘agreeing to protect the rights of the vessel owner under the Limitation Act or a stipulation that the value of all claims does not exceed the value of the respective limitation funds.’ (But this is true only when a claimant seeks to proceed in state court ‘prior to this Court’s determination of a vessel owner’s rights to exoneration or limitation.’ Here, in contrast, Deville asks the Court to decide liability first and then allow Deville ‘to return to state court to try his damages claims.’ Such partial bifurcation is routinely granted,” Jackson stated.
“In this case, petitioner’s right of limitation will be protected by trying limitation first and freeing Deville to seek damages in state court only if limitation is denied. Because Deville’s state court action would be limited to the issue of his damages, there would be little if any duplication of issues. In sum, the Court finds that bifurcating the trial is appropriate pursuant to Rule 42(b) because bifurcation will be more convenient, will prevent prejudice, and will expedite and economize judicial resources. Once the Court resolves the limitation issues, the need for trial on damages may be eliminated or reduced. Importantly, bifurcation will help to avoid prejudice by preserving Deville’s ability to seek a jury trial on damages if limitation is denied. Therefore, the Court will try the issues of liability, limitation, and apportionment of fault in a bench trial, and will bifurcate the issues of damages.”
It was then ordered that claimant Deville’s motion to bifurcate was hereby granted, and Jackson further ordered that the issues of liability, limitation and apportionment of fault will be tried to this Court, in connection with the limitation proceeding. But if limitation is denied and Deville is found entitled to damages, the Court will then dissolve the limitation injunction and permit Deville to try his damages case in state court.
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana case 3:24-cv-00096
From the Louisiana Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com