Truth Aquatics - CASE 2:19-cv-07693 COMPLAINT EXONERATION OF LIABILITY

[Cert1967]

55 - 61

 

[Cert1967]

The doc you may wish to review is found upstream

45_Truth Acquatics Case 2/19-cv-07693.pdf (aquatics misspelled - my type pasted over and over)​

Here we have The Honorable Percy Anderson weighing in for the first time in this case on a Motion to Strike Affirmative Defenses (DOC21).

Section III, the analysis is interesting reading. In the "Conclusions" section, the judge admonishes the parties against ad hominem attacks and editorialized arguments.

 

[danddmiller1]

This isn't a typical statute of limitations issue (and it would be 2 years in California). One of the benefits of this law to mariners is that it accelerates the process.

However, although I don't practice in this area, I do not think they need to justify their claim by 7/20, just file it, which will be a bare bones statement "X was on the boat, TA was negligent causing fire and/or failing to have a watch would have prevented it, and X killed as a result"

It would be in everyone's interest to file. With a time limit, you can always with draw. There is still so much unknown about this.

 

[uwxplorer]

The doc you may wish to review is found upstream

45_Truth Acquatics Case 2/19-cv-07693.pdf (aquatics misspelled - my type pasted over and over)​

Here we have The Honorable Percy Anderson weighing in for the first time in this case on a Motion to Strike Affirmative Defenses (DOC21).

Section III, the analysis is interesting reading. In the "Conclusions" section, the judge admonishes the parties against ad hominem attacks and editorialized arguments.

Before that, it says:
"The Court is highly sensitive to the reality that this is an emotionally-charged case."
Correction: it is actually 34 "cases".

 

[Cert1967]

The latest answer to the plaintiff's complaint is attached. It is representative of other answers filed.

Parties need to weigh in by the deadline set earlier by the judge.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a monition issue out of and under the seal of this Court to all persons and entities asserting any claim with respect to that which the Complaint in this action seeks exoneration from, or limitation of, liability, admonishing them to file their respective claims with the Clerk of this Court at the United States Courthouse, in writing and under oath, and to serve a copy thereof on the attorneys for PLAINTIFFS, on or before July 1, 2020, or be deemed in contumacy and default;
​

The answer attached makes an interesting constitutional claim

22. The Limitation of Liability Act, 46 U.S.C. § 30501 et seq., is unconstitutional in that it deprives the Claimants of property rights without due process of law in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and does not provide for equal protection of the laws pursuant to the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.​

The answer otherwise would seem a bit 'wordy', beyond what would seem to be good pleading in federal court.

The law firm would look to be a small personal injury shop

Los Angeles Personal Injury, Aviation Accident and Maritime Attorneys​

At some point in July, the case should begin to make substantive progress. The judge, Percy Anderson, is known to have a short temper and has been the subject of several negative reviews. At ~72 years of age + time on the federal bench, he is likely set in his ways.

Panel Takes Judge Off Federal Case​

 

[uwxplorer]

Percy Anderson (judge) - Wikipedia

In his Senate hearing in 2002 (linked to on the Wikipedia page), he mentioned that he had expertise (among others) in white collar criminal defense and aviation litigation, particularly product liability. Is that relevant here? Probably not, but that is the closest to the technicalities of the case(s).
A quick search on the internet indeed reveals that he has some vocal hostile commentators, but some very positive ones too (Most Unpopular Judges in the United States, read the comments and The Robing Room).
It depends on whether you listen to attorneys who lost their cases - and money, I would imagine -, or victims.
Let's not rush to conclusions just yet...

 

[Cert1967]

SCHEDULING CONFERENCE

set for September 14, 2020, at 10:30 a.m​

<<>>(“Plaintiffs”) filed their Request for Clerk’s Entry of Default of All Possible Claimants Who Have Not Timely Filed and Served a Claim (the “Request”). In it, Plaintiffs ask the Clerk to enter the default of all persons and entities who, having claims for losses or damages against the Plaintiffs and/or the CONCEPTION arising out of, resulting from, or connected with, the September 2, 2019 fire aboard the CONCEPTION<<>>

The case history shows the record of filings in this case. The answers and responses got everyone involved and laid out their basic positions. The scheduling conference will set the road map for the case to move forward.

 

[Cert1967]

Rule 55. Default; Default Judgment
(a) Entering a Default. When a party against whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought has failed to plead or otherwise defend, and that failure is shown by affidavit or otherwise, the clerk must enter the party's default.

 

[Cert1967]

CASE NO. 2:19-cv-07693-PA- ) MRW
FED.R CIV. P. 26(f) JOINT REPORT

"This report follows the Rule 26(f) conference of the Parties, which took place on August 21, 2020. Having met-and-conferred on the topics set forth in Rule 26, Local Rule 26-1, and this Court’s Orders dated July 16, 2020 [Docs. 148, 150], the Parties report as follows: <<>> "​

Interesting reading and a roadmap the case will likely take. The 'monkey-wrench' - the impact of criminal charges.

The link is to the ABA's Dec 2019 article on 26(f) conferences

Four Tips for Productive Rule 26(f) Conferences​

RULE 26 OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE: GENERAL PROVISIONS REGARDING DUSCOVERY; DUTY OF DISCLOSURE

 

[Cert1967]

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

CV 19-7693 PA (MRWx) Date September 10, 2020

The Court has received the parties’ joint 26(f) report. The Court is aware that the National Transportation Safety Board (“NTSB”) is currently investigating the fatal fire that occurred aboard the Conception dive boat off Santa Cruz Island, California, which is the subject of this litigation. The parties’ joint report states that “the NTSB anticipates completing its investigation in or about October, 2020, and that its report will be available shortly thereafter—possibly in November, 2020.” (Dkt. 164 at 3.) Accordingly, the Court hereby continues the Scheduling Conference to December 7, 2020 at 10:30 a.m.​

Three months down the road?

No reason to have a scheduling hearing if the action may/will be delayed by a criminal filing?