S.Ct. 1269. Finding that “[t]he state proceeding could have no possible effect on the petitioner’s claim for limited liability,” the Court held the provisions of the Act, namely the concursus requirement, did not apply. Id. at 153, 77 S.Ct. 1269. In the present case, the claimants argue that their stipulations transform their multiple claims into a single claim, and therefore, the district court did not err in allowing them to proceed in state court. There is significant support for this contention. In Holly Marine, 270 F.3d at 1090, we held: [I]f all the claimants stipulate that their claims will not subject [the vessel owner] to liability beyond th[e] amount [of the limitation fund], then [the vessel owner] is fully protected, and even if there are 763 F.2d 1007, 1011 (8th Cir.1985) (<HOLDING>). Cf. In re S & E Shipping Corp., 678 F.2d 636,
holding that claimants waiver of any claim of res judicata relevant to the issue of limited liability based on any judgment obtained in state court and claimants concession of the shipowners right to litigate all limitation of liability issues in federal court enabled their actions to proceed in state court holding the relitigation exception was limited to those situations in which the state court has not yet ruled on the merits of the res judicata issue holding that federal rules of res judicata and collateral estoppel determine preclusive effect of prior federal ftca judgments even though liability is based on state law holding that a federal court litigant who is forced into state court under pullman may reserve a right to return to federal court in that the plaintiff can preserve the right to the federal forum for federal claims by informing the state court of his or her intention to return following litigation of the state claims in the state court holding that a federal courts dismissal of state claims without prejudice is not res judicata as to adjudication in either state or federal courts