IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

)

IN RE: GENE BARBOUR and )

SHIRLEY BARBOUR, as owners of ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-00496-N1

the unnamed Vessel HIN# )

FRU19904D111. )

)

ORDER

Gene Barbour and Shirley Barbour (“the Barbours”), as owners of the 

unnamed Vessel HIN# FRU19904D111 have filed a Verified Petition for 

Exoneration from or Limitation of Liability (Doc. 1) pursuant to the provisions of 46 

U.S.C. § 30501, et seq., and Rule F of the Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or 

Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions (“Supplemental Rule F”) for all claims 

arising from an incident occurring on or about April 23, 2014, in which the Barbours’

vessel collided with another vessel while it was being operated in the State of 

Alabama’s Intercoastal Waterway. As required by Supplemental Rule F(4) and in 

accordance with the Court’s previous Orders (Docs. 2, 7), the Clerk of Court 

published notice setting April 8, 2015, as the deadline for filing claims in this action

 1 This case has been randomly assigned to the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge

for all purposes, including trial. (See Doc. 3). Inasmuch as no party, to date, has returned

to the Clerk of Court a Request for Reassignment to a United States District Judge (see id.

(“The parties have the right to have this action reassigned to a United States District Judge 

for trial and disposition. Any party may request reassignment by emailing the attached 

Request for Reassignment to a United States District Judge to 

sandra_rey@alsd.uscourts.gov. Do not electronically file the document.”)), there 

presently exists implicit consent to the undersigned conducting all proceedings in this case. 

See Roell v. Withrow, 538 U.S. 580, 123 S. Ct. 1696, 1703, 155 L. Ed. 2d 775 (2003) (“We 

think the better rule is to accept implied consent where, as here, the litigant or counsel was 

made aware of the need for consent and the right to refuse it, and still voluntarily appeared 

to try the case before the Magistrate Judge. Inferring consent in these circumstances thus 

checks the risk of gamesmanship by depriving parties of the luxury of waiting for the 

outcome before denying the magistrate judge’s authority. Judicial efficiency is served; the 

Article III right is substantially honored.”).

Case 1:14-cv-00496-N Document 10 Filed 11/17/15 Page 1 of 2
2

under Supplemental Rule F(5). (See Doc. 8). To date, no such claim has been filed, 

nor has any other party appeared in this action.

The Barbours have filed a motion for the Court to dismiss this action (Doc. 9), 

representing that their “insurance company has negotiated a settlement with all 

known potential claimants, including those claimants’ identities known at the time 

of the filing of the action as well as all claimants who made themselves known 

pursuant to the [Barbours]’ publication of a notice of the subject action.” The 

Barbours also request return of the $25,000.00 previously deposited by them into the 

Court’s registry as security under 46 U.S.C. § 30511(b)(1) and Supplemental Rule 

F(1). (See Doc. 4).

Upon consideration, it is ORDERED that the Barbours’ motion to dismiss 

and for return of funds (Doc. 9) is GRANTED. Accordingly, this action is 

DISMISSED under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2), with costs taxed as 

paid. In accordance with S.D. Ala. CivLR 67(e), the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED 

to disburse to the Barbours’ counsel of record the $25,000.00 previously deposited by 

the Barbours into the Court’s registry (see Doc. 4).

DONE and ORDERED this the 17th day of November 2015.

/s/ Katherine P. Nelson

KATHERINE P. NELSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00496-N Document 10 Filed 11/17/15 Page 2 of 2