F ILED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS EL EV EN TH C IRC UIT A pril 2 5, 2007 T HOMA S K. KA HN CLERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 06- 1137 3

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 05-00119 -CV -J-25MMH MARITI ME TUG & BARGE, INC., as owne r of

the M/V I sa

be lle C, f or e xone ratio n fro m or l im it at io n o f li ab il it y , Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t,
ve rs us ROYAL INDEMNITY COMPANY, A Mem be r of Ro y al Sp eci al ty Und erwri ti ng , Inc ., MARTIN K. EBY CONSTRUCTION CO., INC.,
Defen da nt s- App el le es .

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the Mi ddl e D istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (A pr il 25, 200 7) Be fo re CA RN E S, W IL SO N and H IL L , Ci rc uit Jud ge s.2

PE R CU RIA M: Maritim e T ug & Barge, Inc. appeals from the j udgm ent of the district court dis m iss ing w ithpr ej udi ce it s 46 U
. S. C. § 18 5 pe tit ionf or e xone ratio n f

ro m or li m it at io n o f li ab il it y . It rai se s t wo i ss ue s. As t o Ma ri t i m e T u g ’s co n t en t i o nth at we s h o u l dv ac at e t h e d i s tri ct co u rt ’s j udgm en t and i nstru ct

it to dis m iss the pe tit ionw ith out pr ej udi ce , w e de cl ine to do
so be cau se of t he way

we in te rp retth e wor ds “ wit h p reju di ce” i n t he jud gm en t. The district court dism issed Maritim e T ug’s § 185 petition because it had not been filed within the six-m onth tim e period specified in the section. T he dism issal pr ope rl y w as w ithpr ej udi ce a s to any f uture § 18 5 pe tit ionby

Mari tim e T ug. T he dis tr ic t c ourt, how ev er , did not have be fo re it

a46 U
. S. C. § 18 3 a ff

irm at ive de fen se no r di d i t ru le on th e m eri ts of t he li m it at io n o f li ab il it y is su e. A cc or din gly , the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s j udgm en t do es not e nc om pa ss the § 18 3 m er its iss ue , and w e do n ot i nte rp re t i t a s be ing w ithpr ej udi ce a s to that i ssu e. N or do
w e int er pr et the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s j udgm en t a s im ply ing any

vie won whe the r a state court has j urisdictio n to decide the § 183 m erits issue; the state courts them selves are q ui te cap ab le of a dd res si ng is su es in vo lv in g t he ir o wn ju ris di ct io n. Mari tim e T ug a lso c ont en ds tha t the dis tr ic t c ourt a buse d it s di sc re tio n in deny ing as futile the m otion to am end the com plaint. Insofar a s the am ended3

com plaint so ughtto reassert the § 185 petition , the district court properly denied it. I nsof ar a s th e oth er

c la im s th at

the m oti on t o am en d so ught to as se rt , the
am en dm en t m ay

not have be enf

uti le
. H ow ev er , giv enthe f ac t tha t a pr oc ee din g inv olv ing tho se sam e cl ai m s is nowpe ndi ng i n st at e co urt, it c le ar ly w oul d be
w ith in the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s di sc re tio n to dis m iss ade cl ar at or y j udgm en t a ct ionin favor of the state c ourt pr oc ee din g. W e have no d oubt that i f w e re m an de d th e
cas e wit h i ns tru ct io ns to pe rm itth e m ot io n t o a m en d, t ha t i s wh atwou ldhapp en . A cc or din gly , w e de cl ine to va cate the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s de ci sio n de ny ing the m oti on to am en d. The bottom

line of our decision is th at the district court correc tly dism issed the § 18 5 pe tit ionw ith out a ff ec tin g any

§ 18 3 de fe nse or

oth er c la im or de fe nse that m ay be a sse rt ed

in the state c ourt. AF FIRMED
.