State Sovereignty Not Implicated in Shipowner’s Limitation Action

Jackson Creek Marine, LLC v. Maryland, No. 24-1788, 2025 WL 2525855 (4th Cir. Sept. 3, 2025).

By Arthur A. Crais, Adjunct Professor of Law

            Jackson Creek Marine, LLC, owner of TUG JACQUELINE A, timely filed to limit its liability when the tug, while pushing a barge, allided with the Nanticoke River Memorial Bridge owned by the State of Maryland. The vessel owner claimed the vessel was worth $900,000 and deposited that sum in federal court.[1] The State of Maryland, the sole claimant, filed a claim in the limitation action in the amount of $3,140,343.98 for repairs to the bridge.[2]

            Thereafter, Maryland filed a Motion to Dismiss pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(1)[3], asserting that the limitation action was invalid based on the state’s sovereign immunity.[4] The trial court held that the limitation action is not a suit against the state and thus denied the motion. The State of Maryland took an interlocutory appeal to the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.[5] The United States intervened in support of Jackson Creek Marine.[6]

            The appeal court began with a review of sovereign immunity, which derives from the Constitution and the 11th Amendment.[7] In analyzing state sovereign immunity, the first determination is whether the state is subject to “the coercive process of judicial tribunals.”[8] This typically arises when the state is sued and required to appear to answer the action, but not when a state commences an action.[9] The same is true in cases of prize and bankruptcy.[10] Another instance is when the state is the “real party in interest.”

            A limitation action does not implicate the state’s sovereign immunity. The action is analogous to a bankruptcy proceeding. Once the vessel owner files for limitation, a claimant may file a claim.[11] It is not coerced into federal court against its will.[12]

            In reaching its conclusion that state sovereignty is not implicated in a limitation action, the Fourth Circuit joined the Tenth and Eleventh Circuits, which concluded the same.[13]

            A copy of the Westlaw version of the opinion is attached.

[1] Jackson Creek Marine, 2025 WL 2525855 at *1.

[2] Id. at *2.

[3] Lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

[4] Id.

[5] Id. “We have jurisdiction over Maryland's interlocutory appeal because the denial of a state's assertion of sovereign immunity may be immediately appealed under the collateral order doctrine.”

[6] Id.

[7] Id. at *3-4.

[8] Id. at 4 (quoting P.R. Aqueduct & Sewer Auth. v. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 506 U.S. 139, 146, 113 S.Ct. 684, 121 L. Ed. 2d 605 (1993)).

[9] Id. at *5.

[10] Id.

[11] Id. at *9.

[12] Id.

[13] Id. at *11; Magnolia Marine Transp. Co. v. Oklahoma, 366 F.3d 1153, 1158 (10th Cir. 2004); Bouchard Transp. Co. v. Updegraff, 147 F.3d 1344, 1349 (11th Cir. 1998).