UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT In re: COMPLAINT AND PETITION No. 22-16928 OF WILLIAMS SPORTS RENTALS, INC. AS OWNER OF A CERTAIN D.C. No. 2004 YAMAHA WAVE RUNNER 2:17-cv-00653- FX 140 (CF 5408 LE) FOR KJM-JDP EXONERATION FROM OR LIMITATION OF LIABILITY, ______________________________ OPINION WILLIAMS SPORTS RENTALS INC., as Owner of a Certain 2004 Yamaha Waverunner FX 140, Petitioner-counter- respondent-Appellee, v. MARIAN LATASHA WILLIS, on behalf of the Estate of Raeshon Williams, Respondent-counter- claimant-Appellant, v. THOMAS SMITH; KAI PETRICH; BERKELEY EXECUTIVES, INC.; ZIP, INC., Third-party-defendants. 2 WILLIAMS SPORTS RENTALS INC. V. WILLIS

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Kimberly J. Mueller, Chief District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted June 8, 2023 San Francisco, California

Filed January 16, 2024

Before: Eric D. Miller and Lucy H. Koh, Circuit Judges, and Barbara M. G. Lynn,* District Judge.

Opinion by Judge Miller

SUMMARY**

Shipowner’s Limitation of Liability Act

In an action under the Shipowner’s Limitation of Liability Act, the panel vacated the district court’s order granting a jet ski owner an injunction against a state-court lawsuit concerning a fatal accident and remanded with instructions to narrow the injunction so that it barred only claims against the owner, not claims against other parties. The Limitation Act limits the liability of vessel owners for accidents that occurred without their privity or * The Honorable Barbara M. G. Lynn, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Texas, sitting by designation. ** This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader. WILLIAMS SPORTS RENTALS INC. V. WILLIS 3

knowledge to “the value of the vessel and pending freight.” When a vessel owner files suit under the Limitation Act, injured parties must file their claims against the owner in the federal limitation proceeding. Here, after the jet ski owner initiated the federal limitation proceeding, the district court enjoined all other lawsuits arising from the jet ski accident. Only the decedent’s mother filed a claim against the owner in the limitation proceeding. She also filed a wrongful-death lawsuit against other defendants in California state court, and she asked the district court to dissolve its injunction so that she could add the jet ski owner to her state-court lawsuit. The district court denied the motion. In prior appeals, this court vacated and then reversed with instructions to dissolve the injunction. State-court defendants subsequently filed cross-complaints against the jet ski owner for indemnity and contribution, as well as attorney’s fees, and the district court again enjoined the “continued prosecution of any legal proceedings of any nature, except in the present proceeding, in respect to any claim arising from” the accident. The panel held that, in general, a district court has broad discretion in deciding whether to dissolve or reinstate an injunction issued under the Limitation Act, but the district court must allow a state-court lawsuit to proceed when there is only a single claimant, and that claimant enters a stipulation protecting the vessel owner’s limitation right. The panel declined to take a position on a circuit conflict regarding whether parties seeking indemnity or contribution count as separate claimants because, apart from such claims, the state-court defendants also brought claims for attorney’s fees, and, absent a stipulation, a party seeking attorney’s fees i