In re Sheffield Tankers Corp.
Petition of SHEFFIELD TANKERS CORPORATION, a corporation, Owner of the Tanker THE TROJAN for Exoneration from, or Limitation of, Liability
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- other
- Panel
- Albert C. Wollenberg (author)
Analysis
The court considered the United States' motion for leave to file an impleading petition in a limitation of liability proceeding, where Todd Shipyards Corporation argued that Admiralty Rule 56 barred the government's cross-claim. The court granted the motion, holding that the government's claim arose from the same incident and subject matter as the limitation proceeding.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
United States' Motion for Leave to File Impleading Petition granted“Therefore, in accordance with the above opinion, the Court orders, and hereby directs that the United States’ Motion for Leave to File Impleading Petition be, and the same is hereby, Granted.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the principle from British Transport Commission v. United States that parties seeking affirmative recovery in a limitation proceeding must be subject to counterclaims arising from the same incident. The court found that the government's claim arose from the same accident for which Sheffield sought limitation, satisfying the requirement that the claim arise out of the same subject matter. The court also addressed Todd's argument that the claim must arise in the proceeding itself, noting the consolidated motion to implead the government in the related case. |
The order itself: sound — The court's reasoning is sound. It correctly identifies the relevant legal standard from British Transport Commission v. United States, a Supreme Court case that directly addresses the issue of whether a government counterclaim can be brought in a limitation proceeding. The court applies this standard to the facts, finding that the government's claim arises from the same incident (the accident) as the limitation proceeding. The court also addresses and rejects Todd's two specific arguments, providing a complete analysis of the motion.
Opinion — Wollenberg
WOLLENBERG, District Judge.
Upon due consideration of the briefs and counsels’ arguments, this Court concludes that neither Admiralty Rule 56, 28 U.S.C.A., nor Local Admiralty Rule 10(c), West’s Ann.Cal.Code, is a bar to this petition. Todd Shipyards Corporation in resisting the motion of the United States has made the following two contentions: First, that Rule 56 requires the Government’s cross claim seek relief for claims arising in this proceeding. Assuming, without conceding, Todd is correct, the Government’s alleged right to relief does arise in this proceeding: See Todd’s pending Motion to Implead the Government filed in Admiralty No. 27506, now consolidated with the present limitations proceeding. Second, the claims of the Government .do not arise out of the same subject matter involved herein. Even though the right to obtain relief against Todd may ultimately depend on the 1955 contract, the Government’s claim does arise out' of the subject matter herein — the accident for which Sheffield seeks limitation.
British Transport Comm. v. United States, 1956, 354 U.S. 129, 77 S.Ct. 1103, 1 L.Ed.2d 1234, is dispositive of the present motion. At page 142 of 354 U.S., at page 1110 of 77 S.Ct., the Court declares “fairness in litigation requires that those who seek affirmative recovery in a court should be subject therein to like exposure for damage resulting from their acts connected with the identical incident.”
Therefore, in accordance with the above opinion, the Court orders, and hereby directs that the United States’ Motion for Leave to File Impleading Petition be, and the same is hereby, Granted.