Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00101/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00101-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 340
Nature of Suit: Marine Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 46:30505-30510 Exoneration, Limitation of Liability

---

1 

3:18-cv-00101-H-KSC

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

In re the complaint of NOVA GROUP, 

INC., a Delaware corporation; 

SHIMMICK CONSTRUCTION, INC., a 

California corporation; and NOVA 

SHIMMICK, a joint venture, for 

exoneration from, or limitation of, 

liability. 

Case No.: 3:18-cv-00101-H-KSC

ORDER: 

(1) APPROVING AD INTERIM 

STIPULATION FOR VALUE AND 

SECURITY FOR COSTS;

(2) DIRECTING THE CLERK OF 

THE COURT TO ISSUE A 

MONITION REQUIRING 

CLAIMANTS TO PRESENT THEIR 

CLAIMS TO THE COURT; 

(3) ENJOINING RELATED 

PROCEEDINGS AGAINST 

PLAINTIFFS-IN-LIMITATION; and 

(4) DIRECTING PLAINTIFFS IN 

LIMITATION TO GIVE PUBLIC 

NOTICE OF THIS ACTION

[Doc. Nos. 2, 3] 

///

///

Case 3:18-cv-00101-H-KSC Document 7 Filed 01/19/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2 

3:18-cv-00101-H-KSC

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

On January 16, 2018, Plaintiffs-in-Limitation Nova Group, Inc., Shimmick 

Construction, Inc., and Nova Shimmick (“Plaintiffs-in-Limitation”), as owners of a 35 

GRT, 80-foot steel work barge called the Dana, filed a complaint pursuant to the Limitation 

of Liability Act, 46 U.S.C. § 30501 et seq., claiming the right to exoneration from, or 

limitation of, liability for all claims arising out of an incident that occurred on July 17, 

2017, in the navigable waters off the coast of San Diego, California. (Doc. No. 1.) On 

January 17, 2018, Plaintiffs-in-Limitation filed an ad interim stipulation valuing the Dana

at $10,000 or less, and promising to pay any successful claimants up to $10,000 at 6% 

interest per annum. (Doc. No. 3.) That same day, Plaintiffs-in-Limitation moved for: 

(i) approval of their ad interim stipulation of value; (ii) a monition requiring all potential 

claimants to file claims stemming from the July 17, 2017 incident with the Court; (iii) an 

injunction halting all related proceedings against Plaintiffs-in-Limitation; and (iv) an order 

authorizing Plaintiffs-in-Limitation to give public notice of this action. (Doc. No. 2.)

Supplemental Rule for Admiralty or Maritime Claims F governs proceeds brought 

under the Limitation of Liability Act. Supplemental Rule F(1) provides that vessel owners 

bringing limitation claims “shall deposit with the court, for the benefit of claimants, a sum 

equal to the amount or value of the owner’s interest in the vessel and pending freight, or 

approved security therefore, and . . . [t]he plaintiff shall also give security for costs and, if 

the plaintiff elects to give security, for interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum from the 

date of the security.” Rather than depositing a sum equal to the Dana’s value with the 

Court, Plaintiffs-in-Limitation stipulated their willingness to pay up to $10,000 for any 

liability in this action with interest at a rate of 6% per annum. (Doc. No. 3.) The Supreme 

Court has approved the use of this kind of security in limitation actions. Hartford Acc. & 

Indem. Co. of Hartford v. S. Pac. Co., 273 U.S. 207, 218–19 (1927) (“Whenever a 

stipulation is taken in an admiralty suit, for the property subjected to legal process and 

condemnation, the stipulation is deemed a mere substitute for the thing itself, and the 

stipulators liable to the exercise of all those authorities on the part of the court, which it 

could properly exercise, if the thing itself were still in its custody.” (quoting The Palmyra, 

Case 3:18-cv-00101-H-KSC Document 7 Filed 01/19/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3 

3:18-cv-00101-H-KSC

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

25 U.S. (12 Wheat.) 1, 10 (1827))). Plaintiffs-in-Limitation also deposited $500 with the 

Court to cover potential costs of suit for any prevailing claimants. (Doc. No. 1-5.) 

Plaintiffs-in-Limitation have accordingly complied with Supplemental Rule F(1), and the 

Court approves the stipulation for value. 

Supplemental Rule F(3) provides that upon “compliance by the owner with the 

requirements of [Supplemental Rule F(1)] 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.” Because Plaintiffs-in-Limitation have complied with Supplemental Rule 

F(1), the Court stays and restrains all suits, actions, or legal proceedings, except this 

proceeding, against Plaintiffs-in-Limitation or the Dana, with respect to any claims for 

injuries or damages connected with the July 17, 2017 incident until the hearing and final 

determination of this proceeding. Plaintiffs-in-Limitation shall mail a certified copy of this 

order to all persons to be enjoined, or their attorneys acting on their behalf. Plaintiffs-inLimitation shall also file a copy of this order with the San Diego County Superior Court in 

Case No. 37-2017-00029166-CU-PO-CTL, Monahan v. Shimmick Construction, Inc. et al.

Supplemental Rule F(4) provides that upon “the owner’s compliance with 

[Supplemental Rule F(1)] the court shall issue a notice to all persons asserting claims with 

respect to which the complaint seeks limitation, admonishing them to file their respective 

claims with the clerk of the court and to serve on the attorneys for the plaintiff a copy 

thereof on or before a date to be named in the notice.” Because Plaintiffs-in-Limitation 

have complied with Supplemental Rule F(1), the Court orders the Clerk of Court to issue 

a monition under the seal of the Court to all persons and entities asserting any claim with 

respect to the July 17, 2017, incident admonishing them to file their respective claims with 

the Clerk of Court on or before February 22, 2018. The monition will also instruct 

claimants to serve a copy of their claims on the attorneys for Plaintiffs-in-Limitation on or 

before February 22, 2018. “Each claim shall specify the facts upon which the claimant 

Case 3:18-cv-00101-H-KSC Document 7 Filed 01/19/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4 

3:18-cv-00101-H-KSC

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

relies in support of the claim, the items thereof, and the dates on which the same accrued.”

Supplemental Rule F(5). “If a claimant desires to contest either the right to exoneration 

from or the right to limitation of liability the claimant shall file and serve an answer to the 

complaint unless the claim has included an answer.” Id. Any answer must be filed on or 

before February 22, 2018. 

The Court also orders Plaintiffs-in-Limitation to give public notice of the monition 

and of this action through publication in a newspaper of general circulation printed and 

published in San Diego County, California, once in each week for four successive weeks 

prior to February 22, 2018. Pursuant to General Order 651, as of April 4, 2016, The San 

Diego Daily Transcript is the Court’s preferred newspaper for publication of notices in San 

Diego County. However, Plaintiffs-in-Limitation may publish their notice in either The 

San Diego Daily Transcript or The San Diego Union-Tribune. The Court orders Plainitffsin-Limitation to mail a copy of the monition to every person and entity known to have 

asserted, or who Plaintiffs-in-Limitation believe may intend to assert, any claim against 

Plaintiffs-in-Limitation or the Dana for losses or damages connected with the July 17, 2017

incident. If Plaintiffs-in-Limitation know that a person making a claim has an attorney, the 

Court orders Plaintiffs-in-Limitation to mail the monition to the person’s attorney. This 

notice will constitute due notice to all persons asserting claims against Plaintiffs-inLimitation or the Vessel for losses or damages connected with the July 17, 2017 incident.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 19, 2018

 

 MARILYN L HUFF, District Judge

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 3:18-cv-00101-H-KSC Document 7 Filed 01/19/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4