NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPLAINT OF 

MISS BELMAR II FISHING INC., AS 

OWNER OF THE P/V ROYAL MISS 

BELMAR FOR EXONERATION FROM, OR 

LIMITATION OF LIABILITY

 CIVIL ACTION NO. 11-4757 (MLC)

 O P I N I O N

THE PETITIONER Miss Belmar II Fishing, Inc. (“MBFI”) brought 

an action pursuant to 46 U.S.C. § 30505, seeking to exonerate 

itself from or otherwise limit its liability for damages related to 

a catamaran (“the Vessel”) that grounded while traveling in the 

Caribbean Sea between St. John and St. Croix (“the Grounding”). 

(See dkt. entry no. 1, Compl. at ¶¶ 1, 7-8.) The petitioner 

Aquatics Management, LLC (“AML”) separately brought an action 

pursuant to 46 U.S.C. §§ 30505 and 30511, similarly seeking to 

exonerate itself from or otherwise limit its liability for damages 

related to the Grounding. See Compl., In the Matter of the P/V 

Royal Miss Belmar on the Complaint of Aquatic Management, LLC,

d/b/a V.I. SeaTrans, as Charterer, of the Vessel for Exoneration 

from, or Limitation of, Liability, No. 11-4771 (D.N.J. Aug. 19, 

2011), ECF No. 1. The Court earlier consolidated those actions 

under this caption. (See, e.g., dkt. entry no. 3, 10-17-11 Order.) 

Thereafter, several claims were settled. (See, e.g., dkt. entry 

no. 59, Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice as to Claimant 

Emery Jagrup.)

Case 3:11-cv-04757-MLC-LHG Document 114 Filed 05/30/13 Page 1 of 5 PageID: 2329
2

CLAIMANT LORNA KING, purportedly acting on behalf of all of 

the individual claimants who remain in the action (“the Remaining 

Claimants”), now moves for a venue transfer to the United States 

District Court of the Virgin Islands. (See dkt. entry no. 87, 

Notice of Mot.)1 MBFI opposes the Motion. (See dkt. entry no. 98, 

MBFI Opp’n Br.) AML separately opposes the Motion. (See dkt. 

entry no. 99, AML Opp’n Br.) The Court resolves the Motion on the 

papers and without oral argument pursuant to Local Civil Rule 

78.1(b).

IT APPEARS that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure govern 

the action, insofar as they provide supplemental rules that apply 

to admiralty and maritime claims. Supplemental Rule F(9) addresses 

venue and transfer, and provides in pertinent part that a maritime 

complaint addressing exoneration or limitation of liability

shall be filed in any district in which the vessel has 

been attached or arrested to answer for any claim with 

respect to which the plaintiff seeks to limit liability; 

or, if the vessel has not been attached or arrested, 

 1 The Court is not certain whether the Motion was brought by 

King, as reflected by the docket, or by Claimant Ira Galloway, as 

reflected by the movant’s papers. (Compare dkt. text entry 

accompanying Notice of Motion, with Notice of Mot. at 2.) It 

appears, however, that this is a difference without a distinction. 

The attorney representing the movant, Jordan N. Pedersen, Jr. of 

the law firm of Javerbaum, Wurgaft, Hicks, Kahn, Wikstrom & Sinins, 

P.C. (“the Javerbaum Firm”), has held himself out to the Magistrate 

Judge to be counsel for all of the Remaining Claimants. (See also

dkt. entry no. 87-1, Pedersen Certification at ¶ 1 (referring to 

the Javerbaum Firm as “counsel for Claimants”).)

Case 3:11-cv-04757-MLC-LHG Document 114 Filed 05/30/13 Page 2 of 5 PageID: 2330
3

then in any district in which the owner has been sued 

with respect to any such claim. When the vessel has not 

been attached or arrested to answer the matters 

aforesaid, and suit has not been commenced against the 

owner, the proceedings may be had in the district in 

which the vessel may be, but if the vessel is not within 

any district and no suit has been commenced in any 

district, then the complaint may be filed in any 

district. For the convenience of parties and witnesses, 

in the interest of justice, the court may transfer the 

action to any district; if venue is wrongly laid the 

court shall dismiss or, if it be in the interest of 

justice, transfer the action to any district in which it 

could have been brought.

Fed.R.Civ.P. Supp. Admiralty & Maritime Claim R. F(9).

THE FACTORS considered when determining whether a transfer is 

appropriate under Supplemental Rule F(9) are the same as those 

considered on a motion made under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) (“Section 

1404(a)”). In re Compl. of Norfolk Dredging Co., 240 F.Supp.2d 

532, 534 (E.D. Va. 2002). “These criteria include: (1) the 

convenience of the parties; (2) the convenience of material 

witnesses; (3) the availability of process to compel the presence 

of witnesses; (4) the cost of obtaining the presence of witnesses; 

(5) the relative ease of access to sources of proof; (6) calendar 

congestion; (7) where the events in issue took place; and (8) the 

interests of justice in general.” Id. (citations omitted); see 

also Jumara v. State Farm Ins. Co., 55 F.3d 873, 879-83 (3d Cir. 

1995). “However, it is important to note that Rule F(9) is an 

entirely distinct statute from Section 1404(a), and the two overlap 

Case 3:11-cv-04757-MLC-LHG Document 114 Filed 05/30/13 Page 3 of 5 PageID: 2331
4

only in the factors to be weighed by a court in determining whether 

or not transfer is appropriate.” In re Compl. & Pet. of Triton 

Asset Leasing GmbH, 719 F.Supp.2d 753, 760 (S.D. Tex. 2010); see 

also Pet. Of Alamo Chem. Transp. Co., 323 F.Supp. 789, 790-92 (S.D. 

Tex. 1970) (discussing history and interrelationship of the 

Supplemental Rules and Section 1404(a)).

THE REMAINING CLAIMANTS argue that Section 1404(a) would 

permit transfer of this consolidated action to the United States 

District Court of the Virgin Islands.2

 But Section 1404(a) is 

inapplicable here. As noted above, this action is governed by 

Supplemental Rule F(9), which is “entirely distinct” from Section 

1404(a). Triton Asset Leasing, 719 F.Supp.2d at 760. Because the 

Remaining Claimants have failed to direct the Court to any binding 

authority stating or suggesting that Supplemental Rule F(9) would 

permit transfer of this action to the United States District Court 

of the Virgin Islands, the Court intends to deny the Motion.

IT APPEARS, however, that it may still be appropriate to 

transfer the action to another district under Supplemental Rule 

F(9). It appears that several independent medical examinations 

were conducted in Miami, Florida. It also appears that some of the 

 2 Section 1404(a) permitted transfer of actions to the United 

States District Court of the Virgin Islands before it was most 

recently amended. See 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), (d) (1996); see also

Hawksbill Sea Turtle v. Fed. Emergency Mgmt. Agency, 939 F.Supp. 1, 

1-3 (D.D.C. 1996).

Case 3:11-cv-04757-MLC-LHG Document 114 Filed 05/30/13 Page 4 of 5 PageID: 2332
5

Remaining Claimants reside in West Virginia; Orange County, 

California; and Vermont. The Court thus intends to order the 

Remaining Claimants, MBFI, and AML to show cause why the action 

should not be transferred either to the United States District 

Court for the Southern District of Florida or to any of the 

districts where one or more claimants reside. 

THE COURT, for good cause appearing, will enter a separate 

Order and Order to Show Cause.

 s/ Mary L. Cooper .

MARY L. COOPER

United States District Judge

Date: May 29, 2013

Case 3:11-cv-04757-MLC-LHG Document 114 Filed 05/30/13 Page 5 of 5 PageID: 2333