Arnone v. Knab

ADDITIONAL CASES In the Matter of the Complaint of David Knab, as the owner of a 2000, 38-foot boat for Exoneration from or Limitation of Liability, Petitioner; 21-CV-703 DECISION & ORDER These two actions arise from a September 2020 boating accident on Lake Erie. Susan Arnone alleges that she was seriously injured because of David Knab’s negligent operation of the boat on which she was a passenger. Case No. 21-cv-72, Docket Item 1-1 at

6-8. In December 2020, she brought a negligence claim against Knab in state court (the “negligence case”), see Case No. 21-cv-72, Docket Item 1-1, which then was removed to this Court based on the Court’s admiralty jurisdiction, Case No. 21-cv-72, Docket Item 1. After the negligence case was removed, Knab filed a separate petition in this Court under the Limitation of Liability Act of 1851, 46 U.S.C. §30501 et seq., and Rule F of the Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions (the “limitation proceeding”). Case No. 21-cv-703, Docket Item 1. Because of an order entered in the limitation proceeding shortly after its commencement, the negligence case was effectively stayed while the limitation proceeding moved forward. See Case No. 21-cv-703, Docket Item 4. On August 30, 2022, Arnone moved to remand the negligence case to state court. Case No. 21-cv-72, Docket Item 27. The next day, she moved to stay the limitation proceeding and to lift any stay on the negligence case so that the negligence case could proceed in state court after remand. Case No. 21-cv-703, Docket Item 30. This Court then referred those motions to United States Magistrate Judge Michael J. Roemer under 28 U.S.C. §636(a)(1)(A) and (B). Case No. 21-cv-72, Docket Item 34; Case No. 21-cv-703, Docket Item 36.¹ On April 26, 2023, Judge Roemer issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) finding that Arnone’s motions should be granted. Case No. 21-cv-72, Docket Item 37; Case No. 21-cv-703, Docket Item 41. More specifically, Judge Roemer recommended that the stay of the negligence case be lifted, that the negligence case be remanded to state court, and that the limitation proceeding be stayed while the negligence case proceeds in state court. Case No. 21-cv-72, Docket Item 37 at 14; Case No. 21-cv-703, Docket Item 41 at 14. Knab then objected to Judge Roemer’s recommendation to grant Arnone’s motion to remand the negligence case.² Case No. 21-cv-72, Docket Item 39. On July 21, 2023, Arnone responded to Knab’s objection, Case No. 21-cv-72, Docket Item 50; and Knab replied a week later, Case No. 21-cv-72, Docket Item 51.³ A district court may accept, reject, or modify the findings or recommendations of a magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). The court must review de novo those portions of a magistrate judge’s recommendation to which a party objects. 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). This Court has carefully and thoroughly reviewed the R&R; the record in this case; the objection, response, and reply; and the materials submitted to Judge Roemer. Based on that de novo review, the Court denies Arnone’s motion to remand the negligence case. But the Court accepts and adopts Judge Roemer’s recommendation to grant Arnone’s motion to stay the limitation proceeding and to lift the stay on the negligence case. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND⁴ On September 5, 2020, Arnone was boating on Lake Erie in a “2000 Powerquest Cruiser” owned and operated by Knab. Case No. 21-cv-72, Docket Item 1-1 at