UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT In re: LIVE LIFE BELLA VITA LLC No. 23-55613 AND GARY DORDICK AND NAVA DORDICK, individually and as owner D.C. No. of the 50.5 Foot Solaris sailboat 2:22-cv-09244- ALLORA Official No. 1282524, for JLS-MAA Exoneration From of Limitation of Liability, OPINION ------------------------------ LIVE LIFE BELLA VITA, LLC; GARY DORDICK; NAVA DORDICK,

Third-party-plaintiffs- Appellants,

v. CRUISING YACHTS, INC.; CRUISING YACHTS UNLIMITED, INC.; SAIL CALIFORNIA, INC.; DAVEY LUX, INC.; S AND K DIVE SERVICE, INC.; DAVID YOSEF JACOBSON; ROES, 1 to 100, inclusive,

Third-party-defendants- 2 LIVE LIFE BELLA VITA, LLC V. CRUISING YACHTS, INC.

Appellees,

and EDUARDO LOAIZA,

Claimant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Josephine L. Staton, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted June 13, 2024 Pasadena, California

Filed September 12, 2024

Before: Mary H. Murguia, Chief Judge, and Morgan Christen and Lawrence VanDyke, Circuit Judges.

Opinion by Chief Judge Murguia LIVE LIFE BELLA VITA, LLC V. CRUISING YACHTS, INC. 3

SUMMARY*

Maritime Law

In an action brought under the Limitation of Liability Act by shipowners seeking to limit their liability in connection with a severe injury suffered by maintenance diver Eduardo Loaiza, the panel vacated the district court’s order dissolving its injunction precluding other courts, including state courts, from adjudicating claims related to the same accident. The Limitation Act caps liability so that a shipowner is on the hook for no more than the value of the vessel and its cargo, and creates a special procedure for a federal district court to apportion this money among the injured parties. This procedure requires the district court to enjoin other courts from adjudicating claims related to the same maritime accident. When a shipowner initiates an action under the Limitation Act and multiple claimants seek money damages, the district court retains exclusive jurisdiction over the proceeding. A claimant may, however, proceed in state court when only one claim has been filed and nothing appears to suggest the possibility of another claim. Because the Limitation Act is meant to distribute a finite fund among multiple claimants, the Act’s special procedure is presumably not necessary when only a “single claimant” is involved. Once the shipowners received notice of the accident in which Loaiza was injured, they sought to limit their liability * This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader. 4 LIVE LIFE BELLA VITA, LLC V. CRUISING YACHTS, INC.

in federal court, and the district court enjoined all related suits in accordance with the Limitation Act. Loaiza, wishing to pursue his claims in state court, asked the district court to stay its injunction under the “single claimant” exception. The district court granted Loaiza’s motion pursuant to the “single claimant” exception, effectively dissolving the injunction and allowing Loaiza to proceed in state court. A third party then filed counterclaims and crossclaims in federal court for indemnity, contribution, declaratory relief, and attorney’s fees. In this interlocutory appeal, the shipowners argued that the “single claimant” exception should not apply because there are third-party claims for indemnification and attorney’s fees pending in the federal court action, and therefore multiple claimants to the fund. The panel held that parties seeking indemnity or contribution are separate claimants in the Limitation Act context,