OPINION & ORDER Petitioners Deborah Harten and Ralph Cassarino seek exoneration from or limitation of liability pursuant to 46 U.S.C. §30511(a)1 related to a boating accident that occurred on July 8, 2018. Respondents Diane Velloza and Carl Velloza, who have separately sued petitioners for liability in a related matter pending before this court in Velloza v. Ralph, 18-cv-4781, move to dismiss this action under Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failing to comply with the statute of limitations or, alternatively, for failing to comply with Rule F(2) of the Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions (“Supp. R.”). For the reasons that follow, respondents’ motion to dismiss is denied in part and granted in part.I. Standard of ReviewRespondents move to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12, though they do not specify which subsection. When considering a Rule 12 motion, the court must accept as true all well-pleaded factual allegations and must draw all inferences in petitioners’ favor. Swiatkowski v. Citibank, 446 Fed. Appx. 360, 360-61 (2d Cir. 2011). On a Rule 12 motion to dismiss, a complaint is deemed to include “any written instrument attached to it as an exhibit or any statements or documents incorporated in it by reference.” Int’l Audiotext Network, Inc. v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 62 F.3d 69, 72 (2d Cir. 1995) (per curiam) (quoting Cortec Indus., Inc. v. Sum Holding L.P., 949 F.2d 42, 47 (2d Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 960 (1992)); Naugler v. Air Line Pilots Ass’n, Int’l, 2008 WL 857057, at *1 n.3 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 27, 2008). The court may take such documents into consideration when deciding a motion to dismiss without converting the motion into one for summary judgment. Chambers v. Time Warner, Inc., 282 F.3d 147, 152-53 (2d Cir. 2002).Respondents annex two exhibits containing multiple documents to their motion to dismiss. Exhibit A includes two identical letters dated July 10, 2018 described by respondents as “notice[s] of claim” sent by counsel for respondents, Jamie Minchew, to each petitioner. Exhibit B includes two separate documents. The first is an email from [email protected] purporting to relay a voicemail message from Jean Quinn of GEICO Marine Insurance to Ms. Minchew regarding “the Diane Velloza matter” dated July 18, 2018. The second is a letter dated July 20, 2018 from GEICO Marine Insurance to Ms. Minchew, following up on a telephone conversation that took place on July 19, 2018 and discussing the boating accident that underlies this action, attempting to outline a framework for moving forward with the investigation of the claims made, and asserting GEICO Marine Insurance’s intent to seek subrogation for accident-related damages to the petitioners’ boat.The complaint references “the claim of Diane and Carl Velloza” and states that “[p]etitioners commenced this proceeding within six months of receiving written notice of claim.” Complaint at
