## Facts

- Magnolia Marine Transport Co. owned and operated the tug M/V ROBERT Y. LOVE, pushing two empty barges upstream on the Arkansas River near Webbers Falls, Oklahoma.
- As the tug approached the Interstate 40 bridge, the captain suffered cardiac arrhythmia, lost consciousness, and the tug and barges struck the bridge, causing it to collapse into the river.
- The collapse caused vehicles to fall into the river, resulting in fourteen deaths and multiple injuries.
- Oklahoma incurred costs exceeding $58 million for response, recovery, repair, loss of use, and cleanup.
- Magnolia filed a federal admiralty petition seeking exoneration from or limitation of liability under the Limitation of Liability Act; a federal injunction issued restraining suits outside the limitation proceeding.
- Oklahoma filed its own damages action; the limitation proceeding was later transferred and consolidated in the federal district court in Oklahoma.
- Oklahoma moved to dismiss the limitation proceeding, asserting Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity; the district court denied the motion, and Oklahoma took an interlocutory appeal.

## Issues

1. Whether an admiralty limitation-of-liability proceeding that marshals all claims in a concursus, including a State’s claim, constitutes a prohibited “suit” against the State barred by the Eleventh Amendment.
2. Whether the federal court may exercise jurisdiction over Oklahoma as a claimant in the Limitation Act proceeding when the shipowner seeks only exoneration or limitation, not affirmative coercive relief against the State.

## Decision

- The Tenth Circuit affirmed the denial of Oklahoma’s motion to dismiss.
- The court held the limitation proceeding was not barred by the Eleventh Amendment because it was not a “suit” against the State in the relevant sense.
- The court allowed the limitation action to proceed in federal court with Oklahoma participating as a claimant.

## Legal Principles

- Eleventh Amendment immunity turns on whether the proceeding is, in substance, a “suit” against the State involving coercive process comparable to an in personam action.
- A Limitation of Liability Act proceeding is a concursus designed to gather all claims, determine the shipowner’s liability (if any), and distribute a limited fund; it does not seek damages or other coercive relief from claimants.
- When a State appears in the limitation concursus as a claimant seeking recovery, the proceeding does not function as an action imposing liability on the State and is not barred merely because the State is included among claimants.
- Treating Limitation Act concursus proceedings as barred whenever a State is a claimant would impair the federal limitation procedure’s centralizing function absent a clear constitutional command.

## Conclusion

The court held that Oklahoma’s sovereign immunity did not require dismissal of the shipowner’s federal Limitation Act proceeding because the concursus mechanism limits the shipowner’s exposure and distributes any limited fund, without seeking coercive relief against the State as a defendant.


In re Magnolia Marine Transport Co., 366 F.3d 1153 (10th Cir. 2004)