In Re Complaint and Petition of Brian Mackey
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- John A. Houston (author)
Analysis
Petitioner filed a complaint for exoneration or limitation of liability along with three proposed orders for a monition, an ad interim stipulation of value, and notice of filing, but failed to submit accompanying motions or applications. The court denied the three proposed orders without prejudice because the court could not determine their appropriateness without the supporting motions.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Denial of Petitioner's proposed orders (ECF Nos. 2, 3, 4) without prejudice“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED Petitioner’s proposed orders are denied without prejudice.” | agree with court The court's decision to deny the proposed orders without prejudice is procedurally sound. A proposed order is not a motion; it is a document for the judge to sign if the underlying motion is granted. By filing only the proposed orders without the corresponding motions or applications, the petitioner failed to provide the court with the necessary legal arguments, factual basis, or procedural context to evaluate the requests. Denying them without prejudice allows the petitioner to refile with proper motions, which is the standard procedural remedy for this type of deficiency. |
The order itself: sound with gaps — The order is procedurally correct in denying the proposed orders due to the lack of accompanying motions. However, the order contains a significant internal inconsistency and gap. The main body of the order states the denial is because the court is 'unable to determine the appropriateness of the requests' due to the lack of motions. However, footnote 4 provides a specific substantive reason for denying the stipulation of value request (ECF No. 3): the absence of a letter of undertaking from an insurer. This suggests the court did evaluate the merits of at least one request, contradicting the stated procedural basis for the denial. Furthermore, the order does not cite the specific local rules or Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that require motions to be accompanied by supporting memoranda or that proposed orders are not standalone filings. The reliance on Hartford is noted in a footnote but does not directly support the procedural denial of the proposed orders, only the substantive requirement for security.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
inconsistent with cited authority inconsistent with cited authorityOpinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 Case No.: 3:23-cv-00337-JAH-MSB IN RE: COMPLAINT AND PETITION 12 OF BRIAN MACKEY AS OWNER OF ORDER DENYING REQUESTS A CERTAIN 1990 TRIUMPH BOATS 13 WITHOUT PREJUDICE 150, 18 FOR EXONERATION FROM 14 OR LIMITATION OF LIABILITY (ECF Nos. 2, 3, 4) 15 16 17 Petitioner Brian Mackey (“Petitioner”) has filed a Complaint on February 21, 2023, 18 pursuant to 46 U.S.C. § 30501 et seq., and Supplemental Admiralty Rule F, claiming the 19 right to exoneration from, or limitation of liability for, all claims arising out of a claimed 20 incident occurring on or about May 21, 2022, on the Colorado River north of the I-10 21 overpass involving a certain 1990 TRIUMPH BOATS 150, 18 involving H.N. 22 (“Decedent”)1. Petitioner was the owner of the Vessel involved in the May 21, 2022, 23 incident. Petitioner also seeks a Monition, (ECF No. 2), and an ad interim stipulation of 24 25 26 27 1 On information and belief Decedent was a minor at the time of her death and 28 1 || the value of the vessel,” (ECF No. 3), and motion requesting an issuance of notice of filing 2 || for exoneration from or limitation of liability, (ECF No. 4). Petitioner has submitted three 3 ||proposed orders without any accompanying motions or applications supporting his 4 ||requests. As such, the Court is unable to determine the appropriateness of the requests. 5 || Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED Petitioner’s proposed orders are denied without 6 || prejudice. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 || DATED: March 16, 2023 9 VU 10 11 J A. HOUSTON NITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 || 24 Although security is required in order to commence a limitation of liability action, 25 ||the Supreme Court has approved of alternatives to depositing the funds or transferring the 26 vessel interest by allowing a plaintiff to stipulate to the value of the vessel. See, e.g., Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co. of Hartford v. S. Pac. Co., 273 U.S. 207, 218-19 (1927). The 27 || Ninth Circuit has held that a stipulation coupled with a letter of undertaking from an insurer 28 is sufficient security. Petitioner’s request regarding the stipulation of value does not include a letter of undertaking from Petitioner’s insurer. sy