Rainbow Management Group, Ltd. v. Atlantis Submarines Hawaii, L.P.
United States District Court for the District of Hawaii
158 F.R.D. 656 (1994)
- Written by DeAnna Swearingen, LLM
Facts
Rainbow Management Group, Ltd. (RMG) (plaintiff) had a contract with Atlantis Submarines Hawaii, L.P. (Atlantis) (defendant) to transport passengers by RMG’s boat, the Elua, to Atlantis’s offshore submarine. The Boston Whaler, a vessel carrying scuba divers, was moored close to the location where RMG and Atlantis exchanged passengers. The Elua collided with the Boston Whaler, damaging both vessels and injuring Boston Whaler passenger George Berry. Berry and his wife sued Atlantis and RMG for negligence. Atlantis cross-claimed against RMG for: (1) breach of contract and (2) contribution and indemnity. RMG then cross-claimed against Atlantis for contribution and indemnity. The following year, RMG filed a separate action against Atlantis, seeking to recover for damage to the Elua and loss of its use. RMG moved to consolidate its suit with the Berry action, which was still pending, but the court denied its motion on account of delay and prejudice. RMG and Atlantis eventually settled the Berrys’ claims. Atlantis moved for summary judgment against RMG in the second suit on the ground that RMG’s claims were compulsory counterclaims that should have been filed in the Berry action.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Fong, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.