In the Matter of Golden Eye 2000, LLC, 19-cv-03402-HSG. (2019)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20191127d05
Visitors: 14
Filed: Nov. 26, 2019
Latest Update: Nov. 26, 2019
Summary: ORDER DIRECTING THE PARTIES TO FILE A REVISED STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. , District Judge . On November 1, 2019, the Court issued an order granting Plaintiff-in-Limitation's motion for default judgment and the parties' joint stipulation to remand and stay the case. Dkt. No. 22. The Supreme Court has held that a district court in its discretion may dismiss a Limitation Act proceeding so that the parties can pursue the claims in state court, so long as the district
Summary: ORDER DIRECTING THE PARTIES TO FILE A REVISED STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. , District Judge . On November 1, 2019, the Court issued an order granting Plaintiff-in-Limitation's motion for default judgment and the parties' joint stipulation to remand and stay the case. Dkt. No. 22. The Supreme Court has held that a district court in its discretion may dismiss a Limitation Act proceeding so that the parties can pursue the claims in state court, so long as the district ..
More
ORDER DIRECTING THE PARTIES TO FILE A REVISED STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR., District Judge.
On November 1, 2019, the Court issued an order granting Plaintiff-in-Limitation's motion for default judgment and the parties' joint stipulation to remand and stay the case. Dkt. No. 22. The Supreme Court has held that a district court in its discretion may dismiss a Limitation Act proceeding so that the parties can pursue the claims in state court, so long as the district court is satisfied that "a vessel owner's right to seek limitation will be protected." Lewis v. Lewis & Clark Marine, Inc., 531 U.S. 438, 454 (2001). The Court held that because there was only a single claimant in this action, and because the parties made the necessary stipulations, the case could proceed in state court. Dkt. No. 22 at 3-4.
However, this admiralty action was initially filed in federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1333, and principles of federalism prohibit the Court from remanding this action to a non-originating state court. See Dkt. No. 1. Accordingly, the Court DIRECTS the parties to file by December 3, 2019, a revised stipulation and proposed order directing the parties to proceed with the action in state court, but without requiring the Court to remand this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
