Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 In re: BAD BEHAVIOR, LLC, Case No.: 26-cv-1860-AGS-MSB 4 Plaintiff-in-Limitation, ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS (ECF 4 & 6) AND: 5 (1) RESTRAINING ALL SUITS 6 (2) APPROVING STIPULATION FOR VALUE 7 (3) DIRECTING NOTICE 8 9 Plaintiff-in-limitation Bad Behavior, LLC, the owner of the motor vessel Bad 10 Behavior,1 seeks an order: (1) restraining all suits against it and its principals arising from 11 a September 21, 2025 incident; (2) directing publication of notice; and (3) approving a 12 preliminary stipulated value of $151,784.80 for the vessel Bad Behavior. (See ECF 4 & 6.) 13 For the reasons below, those requests are granted. 14 According to the complaint, around “September 21, 2025,” the Bad Behavior “and 15 its crew were participating in the 2025 Beneteau Cup.” (ECF 1, at 1.) During that “sailing 16 competition,” “the Vessel came into contact with another vessel that was also participating 17 in the Race.” (Id.) “Nine” people were on board “acting as active participants of the Race.” 18 (Id.) The Bad Behavior was “damaged,” and plaintiff calculates the vessel’s post-accident 19 value at “$151,784.80.” (Id.) Plaintiff believes that “at least two” of the individuals on 20 board, as well as others on the other boat, “may have suffered personal injuries and property 21 damage” because of the crash. (Id.) So, the boat’s owners brought this admiralty-limitation 22 action in this court. 23 Such an action is somewhat different from what is typically filed in federal court. 24 The law “allows a vessel owner to limit liability for damage or injury, occasioned without 25 26 27 1 The Bad Behavior is “a 2025 44’ Beneteau First 44.7 bearing Primary Vessel No. 1254815 and Hull Identification No. BEYD5099A505, and her engines, tackle, 28 1 the owner’s privity or knowledge, to the value of the vessel or the owner’s interest in the 2 vessel.” Lewis v. Lewis & Clark Marine, Inc., 531 U.S. 438, 446 (2001); see also 46 U.S.C. 3 § 30523(a)–(b). The rules for such a suit permit a vessel’s owner to file a “complaint,” 4 which must “set forth the facts on the basis of which the right to limit liability is asserted,” 5 “the value of the vessel” after the incident in question, and the “voyage” during which the 6 incident took place, along with any known claims arising from the voyage. Fed. R. Civ. P., 7 Supp. R. F(2). From there, “all claims and proceedings against the owner or the owner’s 8 property with respect to the matter in question shall cease,” Fed. R. Civ. P., Supp. R. F(3); 9 “the court shall issue a notice to all persons asserting claims,” id., Supp. R. F(4); and “the 10 court, sitting without a jury, adjudicates the claims,” Lewis, 531 U.S. at 448. 11 A. Enjoining Other Suits 12 After the filing of a sufficient admiralty-limitation complaint, the Court must “enjoin 13 the further prosecution of any action or proceeding against the plaintiff or the plaintiff’s 14 property with respect to any claim subject to limitation in the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P., Supp. 15 R. F(3). Plaintiff’s complaint complies with the requirements for an admiralty-limitation 16 action regarding the September 21, 2025 incident involving Bad Behavior. Thus, all 17 claimants2 or potential claimants must file their claims, and any answers to the complaint, 18 in this suit. They may not begin or continue any other action or proceeding with respect to 19 that incident against Bad Behavior, LLC, or the vessel Bad Behavior. 20 B. Approving Stipulation of Value and Security 21 As a requirement of service, the plaintiff must “deposit with the court, for the benefit 22 of claimants, a sum equal to the amount or value of the owner’s interest in the vessel” plus 23 “costs.” Fed. R. Civ. P., Supp. R. F(1). Plaintiff asserts that, after the September 21, 2025 24 incident that damaged the vessel, “its fair market value, as determined by the difference of 25 26 27 2 The term “claimants” refers to all individuals and entities claiming any injuries, deaths, losses, or damages against Bad Behavior, LLC, or the vessel Bad Behavior, that 28 1 the vessel purchase price and the cost of repairs made as a result of the Incident, was 2 determined to be approximately $151,784.80.” (ECF 1, at 3.) As security, plaintiff offers a 3 “letter of undertaking” from its insurer that it will “serve as security for costs” within the 4 admiralty and local rules, and “as security up to and not exceeding, the sum of ONE 5 HUNDRED FIFTY-ONE THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED EIGHTY-FOUR 6 DOLLARS AND EIGHTY CENTS ($151,784.80) – the value of the Vessel.” (ECF 6, at 7 5.) “In lieu of a traditional form of security”—that is the cash value or the vessel itself— 8 “courts have approved the use” of a “stipulation of value” when “presented together with 9 a letter of undertaking” as “sufficient security.” In re Oceansound Invs., 705 F. Supp. 3d 10 1110, 1116 (S.D. Cal. 2023). So, the Court finds the stipulation and letter of undertaking 11 here are sufficient security. “This ruling is without prejudice to the right of any claimant to 12 demand that the security be increased and to any subsequent appraisal the Court might 13 order.” Id. (citing Fed. R. Civ. P., Supp. R. F(7)). 14 C. Notice 15 Having successfully sailed through each of those procedural requirements, plaintiff- 16 in-limitation is entitled to an order directing notice of the limitations action. See Fed. R. 17 Civ. P., Supp. R. F(4). For all claims by any claimants, the Court sets a filing deadline of 18 May 22, 2026. Beginning within 15 days of this order, plaintiff-in-limitation must 19 “publish[]” notice that: (1) it “seeks limitation” and (2) all potential claimants must “file 20 their respective claims with the clerk of court” by the May 22, 2026 filing deadline and 21 must serve on plaintiff-in-limitation’s attorneys “a copy thereof” by the same deadline. See 22 id. Plaintiff-in-limitation must publish that notice in the San Diego Union-Tribune “once a 23 week for four successive weeks prior to” May 22, 2026. See id. Finally, “not later than the 24 day of the second publication,” plaintiff must also “mail a copy of the notice to every 25 person known to have made any claim against the vessel or the plaintiff arising out of the 26 voyage or trip on which the claims sought to be limited arose.” Id. 27 28 1 ||Dated: April 2, 2026 / 2 3 Hon. rew G. Schopler 4 United States District Judge 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28