Star & Crescent Boat Company, Inc. v. Sunsplash Marina LLC et al, No. 3:2021cv00169 - Document 37 (S.D. Cal. 2021)
Court Description: ORDER granting 36 Joint Motion (1) to continue dates in the Court's Order setting the Early Neutral Evaluation and Case Management Conference and (2) Stay discovery. Joint Discovery Plan due 8/9/2021 Early Neutral Evaluation/Case Management Conference set for 8/18/2021 09:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Jill L. Burkhardt. Signed by Judge Roger T. Benitez on 6/22/2021. (jpp)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Star & Crescent Boat Company, Inc. v. Sunsplash Marina LLC et al Doc. 37 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 In the matter of the Complaint of STAR & CRESCENT BOAT COMPANY, INC., as owner of the Motor Vessel M/V PATRIOT, U.S. Coast Guard Official No. 1246882, and her engines, equipment, tackle, apparel, appurtenances, etc., for Exoneration from or Limitation of Liability, STAR & CRESCENT BOAT COMPANY, INC. dba FLAGSHIP CRUISES & EVENTS 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, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 3:21-cv-00169-BEN-JLB ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION (1) TO CONTINUE DATES IN THE COURT’S ORDER SETTING THE EARLY NEUTRAL EVALUATION AND CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE AND (2) STAY DISCOVERY [ECF No. 36] Defendants. -13:21-cv-00169-BEN-JLB Dockets.Justia.com 1 I. INTRODUCTION 2 Plaintiff in Limitation Star & Crescent Boat Company, Inc. dba Flagship Cruises & 3 Events (“Plaintiff in Limitation”), as owner of the Motor Vessel PATRIOT, U.S. Coast 4 Guard Official No. 124682, and her engines, equipment, tackle, apparel, appurtenances, 5 etc. (the “Vessel”), brings this admiralty action pursuant to 46 U.S.C. § 30501 et seq., the 6 Shipowners’ Limitation of Liability Act (the “Limitation Act”), for exoneration from or 7 limitation of liability against Defendants Sunsplash Marina, LLC, a New Jersey Limited 8 Liability Company (“Sunsplash Marina”); Ocean Rockets, Inc., a New Jersey Corporation 9 (“Ocean Rockets”); Yank Marine, Inc., a New Jersey Corporation (“Yank Marine”); H.O. (“H.O. Bostrom”); 10 Bostrom 11 Seatbeltplanet.com, 12 (“Sealbeltplanet.com”) (collectively, “Defendants”). Compl., ECF No. 1 at 2.1 Company, Inc., LLC, a Wisconsin an Corporation Oklahoma Limited Liability and Company 13 Before the Court is the Joint Motion of Defendants Sunsplash Marina, Ocean 14 Rockets, H.O. Bostrom, and Seatbeltplanet.com along with Ms. Spurr (collectively, the 15 “Moving Parties”) to (1) Continue the Early Neutral Evaluation (“ENE”) and Case 16 Management Conference (“CMC”); (2) Continue All Deadlines contained in Magistrate 17 Judge Burkhardt’s Order Setting the ENE; and (3) Order a Limited Stay Until the Court 18 rules on Defendants’ Sunsplash Marina and Ocean Rockets’ Pending Motion to Dismiss. 19 ECF No. 36. After considering the papers submitted, supporting documentation, and 20 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 23 on April 19, 2021, in Star & Crescent Boat Co., Inc. v. Sunsplash Marina LLC, No. 24 321CV00169BENJLB, 2021 WL 1526601, at *1-3 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 19, 2021), which the 25 Court incorporates herein. In that April 19, 2021 Order, the Court (1) accepted Plaintiff in 26 Limitation’s Stipulation for Value and Letter of Undertaking; (2) granted Plaintiff’s 27 28 1 Unless otherwise indicated, all page number references are to the ECF-generated page number contained in the header of each ECF-filed document. -23:21-cv-00169-BEN-JLB 1 Application for Injunction; and (3) ordered Notice of the Complaint for Exoneration from 2 or Limitation of Liability to Issue. ECF No. 12. It also included a provision ordering 3 Plaintiff in Limitation to serve all Defendants within ninety (90) days of filing of the 4 complaint, or by April 28, 2021. See id. Accordingly, Plaintiff in Limitation served the 5 following defendants on the below dates: 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Date Responsive Date Responsive Pleading Was Due: Pleading Filed: April 21, 2021. May 12, 2021, initially, but Sunsplash Marina June 11, 2021 ECF No. 15. June 11, 2021, after the (Motion to Dismiss). April 21, 2021. Court granted an extension. See ECF No. 31. Ocean Rockets See ECF No. 20. ECF No. 16. N/a – Voluntarily dismissed on May 25, 2021, pursuant April 21, 2021. to Rule 41(a)(1)(A) Yank Marine May 12, 2021 ECF No. 14. (i) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. ECF No. 28. May 14, 2021, initially, but June 14, 2021 April 23, 2021. June 14, 2021, after the H.O. Bostrom (Answer). See ECF ECF No. 17 Court granted an extension. No. 32. See ECF No. 22. May 18, 2021 April 27, 2021. Sealbeltplanet.com May 18, 2021 (Answer). See ECF ECF No. 18. No. 23. Defendant: Date Served: 20 Additionally, on May 24, 2021, Plaintiff in Limitation filed an Affidavit of 21 Publication. ECF No. 27. The following day, on May 25, 2021, and as shown above, 22 Plaintiff in Limitation also filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal of Defendant Yank 23 Marine, noting that although Yank Marine had been served, it had failed to file a responsive 24 pleading or claim in this case. See ECF No. 28. 25 26 27 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 28 -33:21-cv-00169-BEN-JLB 1 and CMC for this case. ECF No. 30. 2 On June 11, 2021, Defendants Sunsplash Marina and Ocean Rockets filed a Motion 3 to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2)-(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. ECF No. 4 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 7 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 10 indicate that Plaintiff in Limitation does not oppose it and is amenable to the relief 11 requested. Id. at 2:25-27. 12 III. LEGAL STANDARD 13 A. 14 “Except as otherwise provided, stipulations must be recognized as binding on the 15 Court only when approved by the judge.” S.D. Cal. Civ. R. 7.2(a). Such stipulations “must 16 first be filed as a ‘joint motion,’” which require neither a hearing date for the motion nor a 17 “a separate points and authorities or declaration unless required by the nature of the motion 18 or requested by the assigned judicial officer.” S.D. Cal. Civ. R. 7.2(b). Joint Motion 19 B. 20 A court’s power to stay proceedings is incidental to the inherent power to control the 21 disposition of its cases in the interests of efficiency and fairness to the court, counsel, and 22 litigants. Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-55 (1936). A stay may be granted 23 pending the outcome of other legal proceedings related to the case in the interests of judicial 24 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 26 will have a direct impact on the issues before the court, thereby substantially simplifying 27 the issues presented. Mediterranean Enters., Inc. v. Ssangyong Corp., 708 F.2d 1458, 1465 28 (9th Cir. 1983). In determining whether a stay is appropriate, a district court “must weigh Motion to Stay -43:21-cv-00169-BEN-JLB 1 competing interests and maintain an even balance.” Landis, 299 U.S. at 254-55. “[I]f there 2 is even a fair possibility that the stay … will work damage to some one else, the stay may 3 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. 5 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 8 action to (1) conduct a conference of counsel and prepare an initial timeline to perform 9 their discovery obligations by June 21, 2021; (2) file initial disclosures and a joint 10 discovery plan by July 7, 2021; and (3) appear for a CMC and ENE on July 14, 2021 at 11 9:00 a.m. ECF No. 30 at 1, 5. The Motion to Dismiss of Defendants Sunsplash Marina 12 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 14 the intention to extricate Movants from the matter in its entirety, . . . it would be most 15 efficient to stay discovery, disclosures, and legal conferences until said motion is decided 16 by the Court, or July 19, 2021, whichever occurs first.” ECF No. 36 at 3:16-19. They 17 cite the standard for when parties request a stay of discovery when a case dispositive 18 motion is pending. See id. at 4:5-11. However, no discovery from the parties is expected 19 or planned (as far as the Court has been informed) before the hearing date on the Motion 20 to Dismiss; rather, Magistrate Judge Burkhardt’s Scheduling Order merely requires the 21 parties to discuss initial disclosures and file a joint discovery plan (as opposed to actually 22 beginning discovery) by July 7, 2021. While it also sets the Rule 26(f) Conference for 23 Monday, June 21, 2021, meaning the parties could begin propounding discovery that day, 24 see FED. R. CIV. P. 26(d)(1) (providing that discovery may not begin until the Rule 26(f) 25 conference), even if a party propounded discovery that day, the earliest written discovery 26 responses would be due would be after the hearing (i.e., on July 21, 2021). See FED. R. 27 CIV. P. 33, 34, 37. Further, even if a party noticed a deposition that day, Defendants 28 Sunsplash Marina and Ocean Rockets could still meet and confer or seek a protective -53:21-cv-00169-BEN-JLB 1 order. Thus, on the one hand, the Court finds that a stay of discovery should not be 2 necessary because the hearing date on Defendants’ Motion is scheduled to take place 3 before any discovery responses would be due. On the other hand, the Court sees value in 4 saving Sunsplash Marina and Ocean Rockets attorneys fees and costs (even if minimal) 5 when they assert that the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over them. If their position is 6 correct, they should not have to expend costs on preparing to partake in the discovery 7 process. As such, the Court, after conferring with Magistrate Judge Burkhardt, agrees 8 that 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 10 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 and advice in evaluating any matters which arise during the ENE.” Id. at 5:2-5. The 13 Court finds no reason to prohibit Mr. Spurr from attending the ENE. 14 V. CONCLUSION 15 For the above reasons, the Court GRANTS-IN-PART the Joint Motion as follows: 16 1. 17 Magistrate Judge Burkhardt’s Notice and Order Setting the ENE and CMC remains in effect, ECF No. 30, except for the below dates, which are modified as follows: 18 Event: Previous Deadline: New Deadline: 19 Rule 26(f) Conference: Monday, June 21, 2021 Monday, July 26, 2021 20 Initial Disclosures: Wednesday, July 7, 2021 Monday, August 9, 2021 21 Joint Discovery Plan: Wednesday, July 7, 2021 Monday, August 9, 2021 22 ENE/CMC: Wednesday, July 14, 2021 Wednesday, August 18, 2021 23 2. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 DATED: Ms. Spurr’s father, Brad Spurr, is permitted to attend the ENE. June 22, 2021 HON. ROGER T. BENITEZ United States District Judge 26 27 28 -6- 3:21-cv-00169-BEN-JLB
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
