claimants, the suits can continue in state court without endangering any interest that the Act protects. Moreover, in Lewis, the Supreme Court discussed a hypothetical which is similar to the present case and implicitly concluded that abstention would be appropriate in certain multiple claimants’ situations: If the district court concludes that the vessel owner’s right to limitation will not be adequately protected — where for example a group of claimants cannot agree on appropriate stipulations or there is uncertainty concerning the adequacy of the fund or the number of claims — the court may proceed to adjudicate the merits, deciding issues of liability and limitation. Lewis, 531 U.S. at 454, 121 S.Ct. 993 (emphasis added). This Christina B.V., 836 F.2d 750, 756 (2d Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>); Jefferson Barracks Marine Serv. Inc. v.
holding that the bankruptcy courts as compared to state courts have exclusive jurisdiction to determine issues of dischargeability under the bankruptcy code holding that a complaint that asserts both admiralty jurisdiction and diversity jurisdiction is not an adequate 9h designation to trigger admiralty procedures holding that claimants stipulations conceding the admiralty courts exclusive jurisdiction to determine all issues relating to limitation of liability and prioritization of their claims allowed them to proceed with common law actions in other forums holding that courts apply substantive admiralty law to claims that sound in admiralty regardless of whether the complaint invokes diversity or admiralty jurisdiction holding that a demand for a trial by jury is inconsistent with an intent to proceed in admiralty