1 COX, WOOTTON, LERNER GRIFFIN & HANSEN LLP 2 LYNN L. KRIEGER (SBN 209592) [email protected] 3 ZVONIMIR A. SOLA (SBN 317704) [email protected] 4 900 Front Street, Suite 350 San Francisco, CA 94111 5 Telephone: (415) 438-4600 Facsimile: (415) 438-4601 6 Attorneys for Plaintiff-in-Limitation 7 ARAMARK SPORTS AND ENTERTAINMENT SERVICES, LLC 8 BRODSKY MICKLOW BULL & WEISS LLP 9 KURT MICKLOW (SBN 113974) [email protected] 10 EDWARD M. BULL III (SBN 141996) [email protected] 11 JARRETT MICKLOW (SBN 352356) [email protected] 12 955 Harbor Island Drive, Suite 130 San Diego, California 92101 13 Telephone: (619) 225-8884 Facsimile: (619) 225-880 14 Attorneys for Claimant MOHEY MERSAL 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 16 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 17 In the Matter of the Complaint of Case No. 2:25-CV-01112-DJC-JDP 18 ARAMARK SPORTS AND ENTERTAINMENT SERVICES, LLC, STIPULATION AND ORDER 19 as the owner of a certain 2017 Sea Ray LIFTING INJUNCTION ON THE – SDX, 220 Outboard. STATE COURT ACTION AND 20 STAYING THIS ACTION For Exoneration from or Limitation of 21 Liability. Admiralty & Maritime Claim 22

23

24 Plaintiff-in-Limitation, ARAMARK SPORTS AND ENTERTAINMENT 25 SERVICES, LLC. (hereinafter “ARAMARK”) and Claimant-Respondent MOHEY 26 MERSAL (hereinafter “MERSAL”) hereby submit their Stipulation and Proposed 27 Order Lifting Injunction on the State Court Action and Staying This Action as follows: COX, WOOTTON, LERNER, GRIFFIN & 1 I. RECITALS 2 WHEREAS this action arises from a personal injury incident that occurred on 3 August 10, 2024, on Lake Tahoe. On that date, a group of friends rented a motorboat 4 from ARAMARK and used the motorboat, a certain 2017 Sea Ray – SDX, 220 5 Outboard, Hull Identification No. SERV2678C717 (hereinafter “the Vessel”) to motor 6 to Emerald Bay to swim. One member of the group, MERSAL, suffered a severe 7 propeller injury while the group of friends was swimming from the Vessel in Emerald 8 Bay on that date. 9 WHEREAS on October 8, 2024, MERSAL filed a Complaint for Personal 10 Injuries with a Demand for Jury Trial in Sacramento Superior Court, Case No. 11 24CV020410 (hereinafter “the State Court Action”), which alleged a single cause of 12 action for negligence against ARAMARK and other defendants. ARAMARK 13 answered the Complaint in the State Court Action on November 27, 2024; 14 WHEREAS on April 14, 2025, ARAMARK filed a petition for exoneration from 15 or limitation of liability in this Court pursuant to

,

, 16 et seq. and under Rule 9(h) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedures and Rule F of the 17 Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims. (DE #1). The petition 18 seeks to exonerate or limit ARAMARK’s liability for any and all claims arising out of 19 the August 10, 2024 incident on Lake Tahoe; 20 WHEREAS, at ARAMARK’s request, this Court approved ARAMARK’s 21 proposed Order Directing Monition and Injunction; Issue Notice; and Approving Ad 22 Interim Stipulation For Value (DE #12) which, inter alia, enjoined MERSAL from 23 pursuing the State Court Action pending further order of this Court. This Order also 24 established a deadline for any and all claims arising out of the August 10, 2024, 25 incident involving the Vessel to be filed in this action; 26 WHEREAS the only claimant to file a claim and answer to ARAMARK’s 27 petition within the monition period was Claimant MERSAL (DE #14); COX, WOOTTON, LERNER, GRIFFIN & 1 WHEREAS the case authorities establish that in limitation of liability cases 2 where there is but a single claimant to a limitation fund who had previously filed a state 3 court action, it is well within the district court’s discretion to dissolve its injunction to 4 permit the single claimant to pursue a state court action by jury trial provided that a 5 stipulation is entered that protects the vessel owner’s right to have the federal court 6 ultimately decide its right to seek limitation of liability. See, Lewis v. Lewis & Clark 7 Marine, Inc.,

(2001). To invoke the “single claimant 8 exception”, “a claimant “must” stipulate to the following: “(1) that the value of the 9 limitation fund equals the combined value of the vessel and its cargo; (2) waive the 10 right to claim res judicata based on any judgment rendered against the vessel owner 11 outside of the limitation proceedings; and (3) concede the district court's exclusive 12 jurisdiction to determine limitation of liability issues.” In re: Complaint of Ross Island 13 Sand & Gravel,

, 1017 (9th Cir. 2000). 14 II. STIPULATIONS 15 WHEREFORE, based on the above, MERSAL hereby stipulates: 16 1. that the $31,432.00 ad interim limitation fund ARAMARK posted 17 herein equals the combined value of the accident vessel and its cargo and pending 18 freight; 19 2. to waive the right to claim res judicata based on any judgment rendered 20 against ARAMARK outside of the limitation proceedings; 21 3. to this district court's exclusive jurisdiction to determine limitation of 22 liability issues. 23 WHEREFORE, based on the above, MERSAL and ARAMARK hereby 24 stipulate and respectfully request that the Court order: 25 1. that the injunction currently restraining MERSAL from pursuing the 26 State Court Action be lifted; 27 2. that the $31,432.00 ad interim limitation fund ARAMARK posted COX, WOOTTON, LERNER, GRIFFIN & 1 and pending freight following the August 10, 2024, incident on Lake Tahoe; 2 3. that the parties be permitted to litigate through trial if necessary the State 3 Court Action and then return to this Court to litigate ARAMARK’s right to limitation 4 of or exoneration from liability if and only if the State Court Action, including any 5 claims for contribution and/or indemnity result in a finding of liability against 6 ARAMARK and the total amount of damages awarded against exceeds the $31,432.00 7 ad interim limitation fund ARAMARK has posted herein; 8 4. that if MERSAL obtains a judgment against ARAMARK in the case of 9 Mohey Mersal v. Travel Systems, LLC, et al, Sacramento Superior Court, Case No. 10 24CV020410, he will not execute on said judgment without first returning to this Court 11 to adjudicate ARAMARK’s right to seek limitation of or exoneration from liability; 12 5. that the injunction preventing any other lawsuits or claims to be filed (DE 13 #12) remains in effect as to all lawsuits and claims other than the State Court Action; 14 6. that MERSAL not seek a determination of ARAMARK’s right to limit its 15 liability in any proceeding other than the instant one; 16 7. that counsel for ARAMARK advise this Court immediately when the 17 State Court Action is concluded; and 18 8. that until such time as this Court orders otherwise following the 19 conclusion of the State Court Action, this case is STAYED. 20 IT IS SO STIPULATED. 21

22 DATED: October 22, 2025 COX WOOTTON LERNER GRIFFIN & HANSEN LLP 23

24 /s/ Zvonimir A. Sola Zvonimir A. Sola 25 Attorneys for Plaintiff-in-Limitation 26 ARAMARK SPORTS AND ENTERTAINMENT SERVICES, LLC 27 COX, WOOTTON, LERNER, GRIFFIN & 1 DATED: October 22, 2025 BRODSKY MICKLOW BULL & WEISS LLP 2

3 /s/ Kurt Micklow Kurt Micklow 4 Attorneys for Claimant 5 MOHEY MERSAL (as authorized by Kurt Micklow on October 16, 2025) 6

7

8 ORDER

9 IT IS SO ORDERED.

10

11 Dated: October 22, 2025 /s/ Daniel J. Calabretta 12 THE HONORABLE DANIEL J. CALABRETTA UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 13

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 COX, WOOTTON, LERNER, GRIFFIN &