In the Matter of the Complaint of Bradley R. Perry

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
MIAMI DIVISION
IN ADMIRALTY
Case No.: 1:25-cv-22217-EA
IN THE MATTER OF:
THE COMPLAINT OF BRADLEY R. PERRY
AS OWNER OF THE M/Y MAD MAX (HULL
ID #VIC44404A424) ITS ENGINES, TACKLE,
APPURTANCES, EQUIPMENT, ETC. IN A
CAUSE OF EXONERATION FROM OR
LIMITATION OF LIABILITY,
Petitioner.
______________________________________/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON PETITIONER’S MOTIONS TO DISMISS
THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Petitioner’s Motions to Dismiss the Claims of
Braelyn Clift, (ECF No. 29) and Ava Adams, (ECF No. 30). Ms. Clift and Ms. Adams each filed
Responses, (ECF Nos. 29, 30), to which Petitioner filed an omnibus Reply, (ECF No. 37). This
matter was referred to the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge for issuance of a Report
and Recommendation on any dispositive matters by the Honorable Rodolfo A. Ruiz, II, United
States District Judge, (ECF No. 47); this matter has since been reassigned to the Honorable Ed
Artau, United States District Judge, for all further proceedings, (ECF No. 51). The undersigned
held a hearing on Petitioner’s Motions to Dismiss on January 27, 2026. Having considered the
Motions, the Responses, the Reply, the arguments advanced at the January 27 hearing, the record
as a whole, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, the undersigned RECOMENDS
that the Motions be DENIED.
Case 1:25-cv-22217-EA Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/29/2026 Page 1 of 7

2
I. 	BACKGROUND
Petitioner Bradley R. Perry (“Petitioner”), as the owner of the M/Y Mad Max (the
“Vessel”) filed a petition before this Court for exoneration of or limitation from liability. See (ECF
No. 1) (the “Petition”). The Petition alleges that on the evening of October 30, 2024, Petitioner
was aboard the Vessel with invited guests on a recreational outing as the Vessel was operated by
Captain William Stein. (Id. ¶¶ 7, 9). Petitioner claims that at all times material to this dispute, the
Vessel “was seaworthy properly and efficiently manned, supplied, equipped, and furnished; and
well and sufficiently fitted and supplied with suitable machinery, tackle, apparel and appliances,
all in good order and condition and suitable for the use for which it was engaged.” (Id. ¶ 8).
Petitioner alleges that, as Captain Stein was operating the Vessel1 on the return voyage, the Vessel
collided with an unlit, unmarked, and uncharted concrete platform located East of the Card Sound
Bridge in Miami-Dade County, Florida. (Id. ¶ 10). As a result of the allision, the Vessel was
damaged and individuals onboard have alleged they sustained injuries. (Id. ¶ 12). Petitioner claims
that the platform “was not visible, did not appear on the Garmin GPS/chartplotter, and constituted
a latent navigational hazard.” (Id. ¶ 11).
Petitioner alleges that the incident was caused solely by conditions beyond Petitioner’s
control and actual or constructive knowledge, and was not the result of any fault, neglect, or want
of care on the part of the Petitioner or anyone for whose acts Petitioner is or may be responsible.
(Id. ¶ 13). Further, Petitioner expressly denies any privity with or knowledge of any wrongful or
negligent act that could be the cause of the incident, (id. ¶¶ 24, 25); Petitioner claims that at the
time of the incident, he was asleep on the Vessel’s aft bench and was involved in neither the
navigation nor the operation of the Vessel.
1 Petitioner later amended his Petition by striking, with the Court’s leave, the allegation that Captain Stein had
rented the Vessel. See (ECF No. 39).
Case 1:25-cv-22217-EA Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/29/2026 Page 2 of 7

3
Petitioner identified four claimants seeking damages as a result of this incident: Braxton
Meloon, Braelyn Clifft, Ricardo Martinez, and Ava Adams. Petitioner seeks exoneration from
these claims or, in the alternative, a limitation of liability pursuant to 46 U.S.C. §§ 30501–30512.
Following the Petition’s filing, the Court entered a Monition and Injunction providing that
“all claims and proceedings against the owner related to this matter shall cease.” (ECF No. 3 at 1).
The Court Ordered that “by July 7, 2025, all persons or entities claiming damages . . . as a result
of the events . . . recited in the Complaint seeking exoneration or limitation, must file their
respective claims with the Clerk of this Court and serve copies thereof on Petitioner’s counsel or
be defaulted.” (Id. at 2).
Claimants Ava Adams and Braelyn Clift (the “Claimants”)2 first filed their respective
Answers and Affirmative Defenses to the Petition on June 5, 2025. (ECF Nos. 4, 5). The Answers
admitted the date and location of the allision and that the Claimants sustained injuries for which
they have claims for damages as a result of the allision. Included as “Affirmative Defenses,” the
Claimants alleged that the “the Petitioner is jointly and severally liable for the negligent acts of
third parties who are not entitled to exoneration from or limitation of liability, including, but not
limited to, the captain of the vessel.” See (ECF No. 4 at ¶ 46); (ECF No 5 at ¶ 46).
The Claimants filed Amended Answers and Affirmative Defenses on July 8, 2025—the
day after the deadline set forth in the Court’s Monition and Injunction—which included a new
section labeled as a “Claim” against Petitioner and a subsection of “General Allegations”
containing eighteen additional factual allegations. See (ECF No. 21 at 5); (ECF No. 22 at 5).
Therein, the Claimants stated that they filed a state-court action asserting a personal injury claim
related to this matter on June 20, 2025, which was “incorporated by reference.” (ECF No. 21 at ¶
2 Because the pleadings pertaining to Ms. Adams and Ms. Clift are substantively identical and filed contemporaneously
to one another by the same counsel, the Court addresses the Claimants jointly herein.
Case 1:25-cv-22217-EA Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/29/2026 Page 3 of 7

4
48); (ECF No. 22 at ¶ 48). The remaining paragraphs alleged that Claimants were passengers
aboard the Vessel on October 30, 2024; that Captain Stein and Petitioner owed the Claimants a
duty of care; that Captain Stein and Petitioner breached their duty of care; that as a direct and
proximate result of the breach, the Claimants suffered damages; and that Petitioner is vicariously,
jointly and severally liable for the injuries and damage caused by Captain Stein’s negligence. See
generally (ECF No. 21 5–9); (ECF No. 22 at 5–9).
Petitioner now moves to dismiss the Claims of Ms. Clift and Ms. Adams.
II. 	DISCUSSION
Limitation of Liability actions are subject to Rule F of the Supplemental Rules for
Admiralty or Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions. The Rule requires petitioning vessel
owners to “issue a notice to all persons asserting claims with respect to which the complaint seeks
limitation, admonishing them to file their respective claims with the clerk of the court . . . on or
before a date to be named in the notice.” Supp. Rule F(4). “For cause shown, the court may enlarge
the time within which claims may be filed.” Id.
Supplemental Rule F(5) dictates the requirements for Claims and Answers, and provides
that “[e]ach claim shall specify the facts upon which the claimant relies in support of the claim,
the items thereof, and the dates on which the same accrued.” Where the claimant seeks to contest
either the right to exoneration from or the right to limitation of liability, they shall “file and serve
an answer to the complaint unless the claim has included an answer.” Supp. Rule F(5).
Petitioner asserts that the Claimants’ original Answer and Affirmative Defense failed to
set forth a Claim within the meaning of Supplemental Rule F(5) and that the Claim included in the
Amended Answer and Affirmative Defenses should be dismissed as untimely under the Monition
and Injunction. Petitioner further argues that if the Claims are accepted out of time, their respective
incorporation of an un-attached state court complaint renders the whole Claim violative of Federal
Case 1:25-cv-22217-EA Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/29/2026 Page 4 of 7

5
Rule of Civil Procedure 8’s pleading requirements. The Claimants respond that the allegations in
their first Answer substantively addressed the elements required of Rule F(5) and, together with
their timely state court complaint, provided Petitioner sufficient notice of their claims; the
Claimants submit that their Amended Answers merely clarified their Claims. Alternatively,
Claimants argue that the Claim set forth in their amended pleading should not be dismissed as
untimely because it was filed only eighteen hours after the Court’s deadline. See (ECF No. 3).
Additionally, the Claimants argue that their Claims do not rely exclusively on their state court
complaints and, instead, reallege specific factual allegations underlying their claims.
Turning first to Petitioner’s timeliness argument, Supplemental Rule F vests the Court with
the discretion to enlarge the time to file a claim “for cause shown.” Supp. Rule F(4). In determining
whether cause has been shown on a motion for leave to file a claim out of time, a district court
“should consider (1) whether the proceeding is pending and undetermined, (2) whether granting
the motion will adversely affect the rights of the parties, and (3) the claimant’s reasons for filing
late.” Golnoy Barge Co. v. M/T SHINOUSSA, 980 F.2d 349, 351 (5th Cir. 1993) (citing Texas Gulf
Sulphur Co. v. Blue Stack Towing Co., 313 F.2d 359, 362 (5th Cir. 1963)).
While no motion for leave to file the claims out of time was filed here—rather, Claimants
maintain that their first answers set forth their Claims—the Court finds cause to accept the Claims
nunc pro tunc. The Amended pleadings were filed a mere eighteen hours after the deadline to do
so had passed; this proceeding was unequivocally pending and undetermined. As for their reasons
for filing late, the Claimants maintain that they believed their first, timely, pleading set forth their
Claims; their amended pleadings corroborate this position as they alleged their intention to “simply
clarif[y] [their] prior answer.” See (ECF No. 21 at ¶ 48;) (ECF No. 22 at ¶ 48). Further, the delay
has not affected Petitioner’s rights. The Claimants filed a timely Answer providing notice, at a
minimum, of their positions on Petitioner’s liability for the October 30 incident, and they allege
Case 1:25-cv-22217-EA Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/29/2026 Page 5 of 7

6
that Petitioner’s attorney was provided notice of their state court complaint. See, e.g., Pet. of
Carnival Corp., No. 05-21633-CIV, 2006 WL 8432012, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 6, 2006) (Jordan, J.)
(granting claimant an extension of time to file claim and answer upon finding a petitioner suffered
no prejudice because petitioner was put on notice of claimant’s position via claimant’s motion to
dismiss). Accordingly, to the extent Petitioner seeks to dismiss the Claims on the basis that they
were filed out of time, dismissal should be denied.
Petitioner further argues that the Claims should be denied as shotgun pleadings because
they each incorporate an un-attached state court complaint. See Weiland v. Palm Beach Cnty.
Sheriff’s Off., 792 F.3d 1313, 1321 (11th Cir. 2015) (“The most common type . . . [of shotgun
pleadings] is a complaint containing multiple counts where each count adopts the allegations of all
preceding counts, causing each successive count to carry all that came before and the last count to
be a combination of the entire complaint.”). Disregarding the attempt to incorporate the state court
Complaint, the Claims nonetheless provide sufficient factual allegations that are “simple, concise,
and direct.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1). Specifically, the Claimants allege that they were taken aboard
the Vessel on a joy ride, during which the boat exceeded 100 miles per hour; that, with Petitioner’s
knowledge, Captain Stein stopped at various marinas along the way to obtain alcohol to drink
while he operated the vessel; and that the allision happened because Captain Stein hit the throttle,
causing the Vessel to hit the cement structure. Claimants allege that Captain Stein owed not only
a duty of reasonable care to the Vessel’s occupants, but also a duty to exercise the highest degree
of care to prevent injuries to others by virtue of the Vessel being a dangerous instrumentality;
Claimants allege that Petitioner, as owner of the dangerous instrumentality, is variously liable for
Captain Stein’s negligence. Further, Claimants allege that, as a result, they have suffered injuries.
Claimants have pled “factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that
Case 1:25-cv-22217-EA Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/29/2026 Page 6 of 7

7
the [Petitioner] is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
As stated in open court, Petitioner’s Motions to Dismiss should be denied.
III. 	CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the undersigned RESPECTFULLY RECOMMENDS that
Petitioner’s Motions to Dismiss the Claims of Braelyn Clift (ECF No. 29) and Ava Adams (ECF
No. 30) be DENIED.
A party shall serve and file written objections, if any, to this Report and Recommendation
with the Honorable Ed Artau, United States District Court Judge for the Southern District of
Florida, within FOURTEEN (14) DAYS from the date of the hearing. Failure to timely file
objections 	will 	bar 	a 	de 	novo 	determination 	by 	the 	District 	Judge of 	anything 	in 	this
recommendation and shall constitute a waiver of a party’s “right to challenge on appeal the district
court’s order based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions.” 11th Cir. R. 3-1 (2016); 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see also Harrigan v. Metro-Dade Police Dep’t Station #4, 977 F.3d 1185,
1191–92 (11th Cir. 2020)
RESPECTFULLY SUMBITTED in chambers in Miami, Florida, on this 29th day of
January, 2026.
________________________________________
LAUREN F. LOUIS
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 1:25-cv-22217-EA Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/29/2026 Page 7 of 7