Star & Crescent Boat Company, Inc. v. Sunsplash Marina LLC

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA In the matter of the Complaint of STAR & ) Case No.: 3:21-cv-00169-BEN-JLB CRESCENT BOAT COMPANY, INC., as ) owner of the Motor Vessel M/V ) ORDER GRANTING JOINT PATRIOT, U.S. Coast Guard Official No. ) MOTION (1) TO CONTINUE DATES 1246882, and her engines, equipment, ) IN THE COURT’S ORDER SETTING tackle, apparel, appurtenances, etc., for ) THE EARLY NEUTRAL Exoneration from or Limitation of ) EVALUATION AND CASE Liability, ) MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE 16 ) AND (2) STAY DISCOVERY STAR & CRESCENT BOAT ) COMPANY, INC. dba FLAGSHIP ) [ECF No. 36] CRUISES & EVENTS ) 19 Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) SUNSPLASH MARINA LLC, a New ) Jersey Limited Liability Company; ) OCEAN ROCKETS, INC., a New Jersey ) Corporation; YANK MARINE INC., a ) New Jersey Corporation; H.O. ) BOSTROM COMPANY, INC., a ) Wisconsin Corporation; ) SEATBELTPLANET.COM, LLC, an ) Oklahoma Limited Liability Company; ) and DOES 1 through 10, ) ) 28 Defendants.

1 I. INTRODUCTION 2 Plaintiff in Limitation Star & Crescent Boat Company, Inc. dba Flagship Cruises & Events (“Plaintiff in Limitation”), as owner of the Motor Vessel PATRIOT, U.S. Coast Guard Official No. 124682, and her engines, equipment, tackle, apparel, appurtenances, etc. (the “Vessel”), brings this admiralty action pursuant to 46 U.S.C. § 30501 et seq., the Shipowners’ Limitation of Liability Act (the “Limitation Act”), for exoneration from or limitation of liability against Defendants Sunsplash Marina, LLC, a New Jersey Limited Liability Company (“Sunsplash Marina”); Ocean Rockets, Inc., a New Jersey Corporation (“Ocean Rockets”); Yank Marine, Inc., a New Jersey Corporation (“Yank Marine”); H.O.

10 Bostrom Company, Inc., a Wisconsin Corporation (“H.O. Bostrom”); and Seatbeltplanet.com, LLC, an Oklahoma Limited Liability Company (“Sealbeltplanet.com”) (collectively, “Defendants”). Compl., ECF No. 1 at 2.1 13 Before the Court is the Joint Motion of Defendants Sunsplash Marina, Ocean Rockets, H.O. Bostrom, and Seatbeltplanet.com along with Ms. Spurr (collectively, the “Moving Parties”) to (1) Continue the Early Neutral Evaluation (“ENE”) and Case Management Conference (“CMC”); (2) Continue All Deadlines contained in Magistrate Judge Burkhardt’s Order Setting the ENE; and (3) Order a Limited Stay Until the Court rules on Defendants’ Sunsplash Marina and Ocean Rockets’ Pending Motion to Dismiss.

19 ECF No. 36. After considering the papers submitted, supporting documentation, and applicable law, the Court GRANTS Joint Motion.

21 II. BACKGROUND 22 A detailed factual and procedural history of this case is set forth in the Court’s order on April 19, 2021, in Star & Crescent Boat Co., Inc. v. Sunsplash Marina LLC, No. 321CV00169BENJLB, 2021 WL 1526601, at *1-3 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 19, 2021), which the Court incorporates herein. In that April 19, 2021 Order, the Court (1) accepted Plaintiff in Limitation’s Stipulation for Value and Letter of Undertaking; (2) granted Plaintiff’s Unless otherwise indicated, all page number references are to the ECF-generated Application for Injunction; and (3) ordered Notice of the Complaint for Exoneration from or Limitation of Liability to Issue. ECF No. 12. It also included a provision ordering Plaintiff in Limitation to serve all Defendants within ninety (90) days of filing of the complaint, or by April 28, 2021. See id. Accordingly, Plaintiff in Limitation served the following defendants on the below dates: Date Responsive Date Responsive 6 Defendant: Date Served: Pleading Was Due: Pleading Filed: 7 April 21, 2021. May 12, 2021, initially, but Sunsplash Marina June 11, 2021 8 ECF No. 15. June 11, 2021, after the (Motion to Dismiss).

April 21, 2021. Court granted an extension.

9 Ocean Rockets ECF No. 16. See ECF No. 20. See ECF No. 31.

10 N/a – Voluntarily dismissed on May 11 25, 2021, pursuant 12 April 21, 2021. to Rule 41(a)(1)(A) Yank Marine May 12, 2021 ECF No. 14. (i) of the Federal Rules of Civil 14 Procedure. ECF No. 28.

May 14, 2021, initially, but June 14, 2021 16 April 23, 2021. June 14, 2021, after the H.O. Bostrom (Answer). See ECF ECF No. 17 Court granted an extension.

17 No. 32.

See ECF No. 22.

18 May 18, 2021 April 27, 2021.

Sealbeltplanet.com May 18, 2021 (Answer). See ECF 19 ECF No. 18.

No. 23.

Additionally, on May 24, 2021, Plaintiff in Limitation filed an Affidavit of Publication. ECF No. 27. The following day, on May 25, 2021, and as shown above, Plaintiff in Limitation also filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal of Defendant Yank Marine, noting that although Yank Marine had been served, it had failed to file a responsive pleading or claim in this case. See ECF No. 28.

On May 25, 2021, Ms. Spurr filed a Claim for Damages (although there is no request for any fixed amount of damages anywhere within this claim). ECF No. 29.

On May 28, 2021, Magistrate Judge Jill Burkhardt issued an Order Setting an ENE and CMC for this case. ECF No. 30.

2 On June 11, 2021, Defendants Sunsplash Marina and Ocean Rockets filed a Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2)-(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. ECF No. 31.

5 On June 14, 2021, H.O. Bostrom filed its Answer to the Complaint. ECF No. 32.

6 That same day, Plaintiff in Limitation also filed an Answer to Ms. Spurr’s Claim. ECF No. 33.

8 On June 18, 2021, the Moving Parties filed the instant Joint Motion. ECF No. 36.

9 Although Plaintiff in Limitation did not join in the Joint Motion, the Moving Parties indicate that Plaintiff in Limitation does not oppose it and is amenable to the relief requested. Id. at 2:25-27.

12 III. LEGAL STANDARD 13 A. Joint Motion 14 “Except as otherwise provided, stipulations must be recognized as binding on the Court only when approved by the judge.” S.D. Cal. Civ. R. 7.2(a). Such stipulations “must first be filed as a ‘joint motion,’” which require neither a hearing date for the motion nor a “a separate points and authorities or declaration unless required by the nature of the motion or requested by the assigned judicial officer.” S.D. Cal. Civ. R. 7.2(b).

19 B. Motion to Stay 20 A court’s power to stay proceedings is incidental to the inherent power to control the disposition of its cases in the interests of efficiency and fairness to the court, counsel, and litigants. Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-55 (1936). A stay may be granted pending the outcome of other legal proceedings related to the case in the interests of judicial economy. Leyva v. Certified Grocers of Cal., Ltd., 593 F.2d 857, 863-64 (9th Cir. 1979).

25 Discretion to stay a case is appropriately exercised when the resolution of another matter will have a direct impact on the issues before the court, thereby substantially simplifying the issues presented. Mediterranean Enters., Inc. v. Ssangyong Corp., 708 F.2d 1458, 1465 (9th Cir. 1983). In determining whether a stay is appropriate, a district court “must weigh competing interests and maintain an even balance.” Landis, 299 U.S. at 254-55. “[I]f there is even a fair possibility that the stay … will work damage to some one else, the stay may be inappropriate absent a showing by the moving party of hardship or inequity.”

4 Dependable Highway Express, Inc. v. Navigators Ins. Co., 498 F.3d 1059, 1066 (9th Cir. 2007) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

6 IV. DISCUSSION 7 On May 28, 2021, this Court issued an order, which requires the parties in this action to (1) conduct a conference of counsel and prepare an initial timeline to perform their discovery obligations by June 21, 2021; (2) file initial disclosures and a joint discovery plan by July 7, 2021; and (3) appear for a CMC and ENE on July 14, 2021 at 9:00 a.m. ECF No. 30 at 1, 5. The Motion to Dismiss of Defendants Sunsplash Marina and Ocean Rockets will be heard on July 12, 2021. See ECF No. 31.

13 The Moving Parties argue that “[b]ecause the . . . Motion to Dismiss was filed with the intention to extricate Movants from the matter in its entirety, . . . it would be most efficient to stay discovery, disclosures, and legal conferences until said motion is decided by the Court, or July 19, 2021, whichever occurs first.” ECF No. 36 at 3:16-19. They cite the standard for when parties request a stay of discovery when a case dispositive motion is pending. See id. at 4:5-11. However, no discovery from the parties is expected or planned (as far as the Court has been informed) before the hearing date on the Motion to Dismiss; rather, Magistrate Judge Burkhardt’s Scheduling Order merely requires the parties to discuss initial disclosures and file a joint discovery plan (as opposed to actually beginning discovery) by July 7, 2021. While it also sets the Rule 26(f) Conference for Monday, June 21, 2021, meaning the parties could begin propounding discovery that day, see FED. R. CIV. P. 26(d)(1) (providing that discovery may not begin until the Rule 26(f) conference), even if a party propounded discovery that day, the earliest written discovery responses would be due would be after the hearing (i.e., on July 21, 2021). See FED. R. CIV. P. 33, 34, 37. Further, even if a party noticed a deposition that day, Defendants Sunsplash Marina and Ocean Rockets could still meet and confer or seek a protective |j/order. Thus, on the one hand, the Court finds that a stay of discovery should not be ||necessary because the hearing date on Defendants’ Motion is scheduled to take place || before any discovery responses would be due. On the other hand, the Court sees value in ||saving Sunsplash Marina and Ocean Rockets attorneys fees and costs (even if minimal) || when they assert that the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over them. If their position is ||correct, they should not have to expend costs on preparing to partake in the discovery process. As such, the Court, after conferring with Magistrate Judge Burkhardt, agrees 8 a modification of her Scheduling Order is appropriate, as outlined below.

9 The Moving Parties also ask Ms. Spurr’s father, Brad Spurr, to participate in the || ENE in addition to and not in lieu of Ms. Spurr’s participation. ECF No. 30 at 4:28-5:3.

11 || They argue that “Ms. Spurr is a young adult, and is desirous of having her father’s counsel 12 advice in evaluating any matters which arise during the ENE.” /d. at 5:2-5. The || Court finds no reason to prohibit Mr. Spurr from attending the ENE.

14 CONCLUSION 15 For the above reasons, the Court GRANTS-IN-PART the Joint Motion as follows: 16 1. Magistrate Judge Burkhardt’s Notice and Order Setting the ENE and CMC 17 remains in effect, ECF No. 30, except for the below dates, which are modified as follows: I8 23 2. Ms. Spurr’s father, Brad Spurr, is permitted to attend the ENE.

24 IT IS SO ORDERED.

25 || DATED: June 22, 2021 26 HON. ROGER T. BENITEZ 57 United States District Judge -6-