Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-02626/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-02626-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 120
Nature of Suit: Marine Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 46:30505-30510 Exoneration, Limitation of Liability

---

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 Complaint and Petition of the

United States of America in a Cause

for Exoneration from or Limitation of

Liability with Respect to DHS-CBP

Vessel M382901 (M901) Re: the

Collision with an Unnamed Panga

Smuggling Vessel on or about June

18, 2015.

CASE NO. 15cv2626 JM(NLS)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR

PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

The United States of America (“Government”) moves for partial summary

judgment on the scope of damages available for the claims asserted by “The Estate of

Graciela Lopez Franco, by and through Guadalupe Valencia, personal representative,

and Martin Franco Jiminez and TrinidadLopezHernandez.” (The “FrancoClaimants”).

The Franco Claimants oppose the motion on the ground that the Government fails to

submit sufficient admissible evidence to show that the incident occurred outside the

three nautical mile jurisdictional limit of the Death on the High Seas Act (“DOHSA”),

46 U.S.C. §30301, etseq. Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(d)(1), the court finds the matters

presented appropriate for resolution without oral argument. For the reasons set forth

below, the court grants the motion for partial summary judgment

BACKGROUND

On November 23, 2015, the Government commenced this admiralty action for

- 1 - 15cv2626

Case 3:15-cv-02626-JM-RBB Document 46 Filed 04/13/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 5
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

exoneration from or limitation of liability. The United States is the owner of a 38 foot

SAFE boat built by SAFE Boats International, LLC and identified as public vessel

“M901.” At the time of the incident at issue, the M901 was operated by the U. S.

Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”).

On June 17, 2015, a “Panga” type vessel with multiple persons on board was

observed by aircraft off the coast of Baja California, Republic of Mexico. On June 18,

2015, the Panga entered United Statesterritorial waters and, in the earlymorning hours, 

the M901 approached the vessel. (Compl. ¶¶7-9). The Panga, 30 feet in length,

transported 20 foreign nationals without legal status to enter the United States. The

vessel allegedly entered the United States with the express purpose and intent of

entering the United States illegally and by stealth. (Compl. ¶11).

Once the CBP Agents on board the M901 obtained visual contact of the

smuggling vessel, the crew activated the blue law enforcement lights, sounded the

siren, activated the spotlight, and verbally ordered the Panga to stop, in both Spanish

and English. Instead of stopping, the Panga accelerated and allegedly engaged in

evasive and dangerous turns. The crew on the M901 fired flares into the air and

attempted to disable the Panga’s engines. The Panga did not stop and struck the right

side of the M901. The Panga sank and CBP Agents rescued 19 of the 20 occupants of

the Panga. One of the passengers, Graciela Lopez Franco, died and several others were

injured.

On December 9, 2015,the court granted the Government’s motion for Notice and

Publication pursuant to the Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and Maritime

Claims. In response to the notice, two individuals (Hector Manuel Lopez Garcia and

Luis Fernando Lopez Garcia) filed claims for personal injury as did the Franco

Claimants. The motion for partial summary judgment is directed at the Franco

Claimants only. 

In their amended answer, the Franco Claimants, parents of the decedent, allege

that the decedent was unmarried, had no children, and died intestate. The amended

- 2 - 15cv2626

Case 3:15-cv-02626-JM-RBB Document 46 Filed 04/13/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 5
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

answer also acknowledges that the incident at issue is subject to the provisions of the

Suits in Admiralty Act (“SAA”), 46 U.S.C. §30901, etseq. and DOHSA. (Ct. Dkt. 30). 

The FrancoClaimantsseek to recover “all legally cognizable damagesto which the law

entitles them.” The present motion seeks to limit recoverable damages to those

damages available under DOHSA.

DISCUSSION

Legal Standards

A motion for summary judgment shall be granted where “there is no genuine

issue asto any material fact and . . . the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter

of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Prison Legal News v. Lehman, 397 F.3d 692, 698 (9th

Cir. 2005). The moving party bears the initial burden of informing the court of the

basis for its motion and identifying those portions of the file which it believes

demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,

477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). There is “no express or implied requirement in Rule 56 that

the moving party support its motion with affidavits or other similar materials negating

the opponent’s claim.” Id. (emphasis in original). The opposing party cannot rest on

the mere allegations or denials of a pleading, but must “go beyond the pleadings and

by [the party’s] own affidavits, or by the ‘depositions, answers to interrogatories, and

admissions on file’ designate ‘specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for

trial.’” Id. at 324 (citation omitted). The opposing party also may not rely solely on

conclusory allegations unsupported by factual data. Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040,

1045 (9th Cir. 1989). 

The court must examine the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. United States v. Diebold, Inc., 369 U.S. 654, 655 (1962). Any doubt

asto the existence of any issue of materialfact requires denial of the motion. Anderson

v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986). On a motion for summary judgment,

when “‘the moving party bears the burden of proof at trial, it must come forward with

evidence which would entitle it to a directed verdict if the evidence were

- 3 - 15cv2626

Case 3:15-cv-02626-JM-RBB Document 46 Filed 04/13/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 5
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

uncontroverted at trial.’” Houghton v. South, 965 F.2d 1532, 1536 (9th Cir. 1992)

(emphasis in original) (quoting International Shortstop, Inc. v. Rally's, Inc., 939 F.2d

1257, 1264-65 (5th Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1059 (1992)).

The Motion

The Government seeks to limit the FrancoClaimants’ damagesto those damages

specifically authorized under DOHSA. First, DOHSA permits a cause of action to be

maintained by the personal representative of the decedent for “the exclusive benefit of

the decedent’s spouse, parent, child, or dependent relative.” 46 U.S.C. § 30302. In

other words, DOHSA does not provide for a survival action or a claimseeking damages

on behalf of a decedent. See Jacobs v., Northern King Shipping Co., Ltd., 180 F.3d

713, 717 (5th Cir. 1999) (DOHSA “provides no survival action”). Second, DOHSA

expressly limits recoverable damages to the “pecuniary loss sustained by the

individuals for whose benefit the action is brought.” 46 U.S.C. § 30303; Dooley v.

Korean Airlines, 524 U.S. 116, 118 (1998).

The Franco Claimants do not dispute these two well-settled damages principles

of DOHSA. Rather, they claim that the Government has failed to establish that

DOHSA applies to the FrancoClaimants because the Government failsto establish that

the incident at issue occurred “beyond 3 nautical miles from the shore of the United

States.” 46 U.S.C. §30302. Under these circumstances, the Franco Claimants contend

that state law applies to permit both a survival action and an award of non-economic

damages. This contention is not persuasive.

The court concludes that there is no genuine issue of material fact that the

incident occurred beyond the three-mile nautical limit required for the application of

DOHSA. The declaration and deposition testimony of Christopher Hunter, the Vessel

Commander of the M901, establish that the incident occurred about 8.9 nautical miles

from the shore of the United States. (Hunter Decl. ¶¶5-10; Hunter Depo. at 108:17 - 

110:20). Hunter declares that within moments of the incident he radioed the precise

GPS coordinates: North 33.00 (latitude) by West 117.28 (longitude). (Hunter Decl.

- 4 - 15cv2626

Case 3:15-cv-02626-JM-RBB Document 46 Filed 04/13/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 5
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

¶7). These coordinates correspond to a point in the Pacific Ocean about 8.9 nautical

miles off the coast of Encinitas, California. (Id. ¶9). 

In sum, the court grantsthe Government’s motion for partialsummary judgment

and limits the scope of recoverable damages to those recoverable under DOHSA. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 13, 2017

 Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller

 United States District Judge

cc: All parties

- 5 - 15cv2626

Case 3:15-cv-02626-JM-RBB Document 46 Filed 04/13/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 5