Lewis v. Lewis & Clark Marine, Inc., 531 U.S. 438 (2001)

Page:   Index   1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next

438

OCTOBER TERM, 2000

Syllabus

LEWIS v. LEWIS & CLARK MARINE, INC.

certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the eighth circuit

No. 99-1331. Argued November 29, 2000—Decided February 21, 2001

Petitioner sued respondent in an Illinois County Court for personal injuries he suffered while working on respondent's ship. He did not request a jury trial. In anticipation of his suit, respondent had filed a complaint for exoneration from, or limitation of, liability in Federal District Court pursuant to the Limitation of Liability Act (Limitation Act or Act). Following the procedure for limitation actions set forth in Supplemental Admiralty and Maritime Claims Rule F, the court approved a surety bond representing respondent's interest in the vessel, ordered that any claim related to the incident be filed with the court within a specified period, and enjoined the filing or prosecution of any suits related to the incident. Petitioner, inter alia, moved to dissolve the restraining order, stating that he was the only claimant, waiving any res judicata claim concerning limited liability from a state court judgment, stipulating that respondent could relitigate limited liability issues in the District Court, and stipulating that his claim's value was less than the value of the limitation fund. The District Court recognized that federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction to determine whether a vessel owner is entitled to limited liability, but also recognized that the statute conferring exclusive jurisdiction over admiralty and maritime suits to federal courts saves to suitors "all other remedies to which they are otherwise entitled." 28 U. S. C. 1333(1). The court found two exceptions to exclusive federal jurisdiction under which a claimant may litigate his claim in state court—where the limitation fund's value exceeds the total value of all claims asserted against the vessel owner, and where there is a single claimant. The court dissolved the injunction because petitioner met the first and, probably, second exceptions, and retained jurisdiction over the limitation action to protect the vessel owner's right should the state proceedings necessitate further federal court proceedings. In holding that the District Court abused its discretion in dissolving the injunction, the Eighth Circuit found that respondent had a right to seek exoneration from, not mere limitation of, liability in federal court; that because petitioner did not request a jury trial, he had not sought a saved remedy in state court; and that because there was no conflict between the saving to suitors clause and the Limitation Act here, there was no basis for dissolving the injunction.

Page:   Index   1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next

Last modified: October 4, 2007