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