Opinion
Civil Action No. 01-3187, (Ref 02-484), Section "L"(4)
October 28, 2002
ORDER REASONS
Before the Court is the Motion of Petitioner in Limitation Crescent Ship Service, Inc. to Strike the Answers and Claims filed on behalf of Claude Banks, Alan Dabney, and Jadi Steward. Counsel for Banks, Dabney, and Steward, in addition to opposing petitioner's motion, has also filed an alternative Motion to Allow Filing Out of Time Claims. Because these motions arise out of the same set of operative facts, the Court will consider them together in this opinion. For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS Claimants' Motion to Allow Filing Out of Time Claims and DENIES AS MOOT Petitioner's Motion to Strike.
I. Background
This case arises out of the September 17, 2002 collision of the M/V WANDA LEE and the M/V MISS ALLY on the Mississippi River. Injured in the collision were Claude Banks, Alan Dabney, Arthur Gillum, Jadi Steward, Daryl Billington, and David Gordon. On October 22, 2001 Lynchburg Shipyard and Dixieland Towboat Management, Inc. filed a Petition for Exoneration from or Limitation of Liability in their capacities as owner and operator of the M/V WANDA LEE. This case was docketed as Civil Action No. 01-3187 and was allotted to this Court.
Pursuant to Rule F of the Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims, this Court established January 7, 2002 as the final date on which to file claims against the vessel or risk default. Between October 22, 2001 and January 4, 2002, Banks, Dabney, Gillum, Steward, Billington, Gordon, and Crescent Ship Service as owner of the M/V MISS ALLY, properly and timely filed their answers and claims to the petitioners' complaint for limitation. Following proper notification and publication procedures, Lynchburg moved and was granted a default judgment against all persons who failed to timely claim damages arising out of the incident.
On February 21, 2002 Crescent Ship Service filed a Petition for Exoneration from or Limitation of Liability in its capacity as the owner of the M/V MISS ALLY. The petition was allotted to Section A of this Court and docketed as Civil Action No. 02-484. On March 1, 2002, Judge Zainey signed an order setting the deadline for filing claims and answers as September 3, 2002. Notice of this date was properly sent and published. On that same day, Judge Zainey transferred No. 02-484 to this Court because of its relation to No. 01-3187. These matters were consolidated for trial before this Court by order dated March 28, 2002.
This Court set a status conference on April 5, 2002 to discuss the effect of the consolidation on the trial date and related deadlines. Counsel for all parties, including counsel for Banks, Dabney, and Steward, attended the conference. Thereafter, the Court issued a Minute Entry modifying Judge Zainey's order and re-set the deadline for filing claims to June 3, 2002 as to Crescent Ship's limitation proceeding. No notice of this new date was published.
Lynchburg had already filed its answer and claim against Crescent Ship Service on February 27, 2002. Subsequent to the April 5, 2002 status conference, claimants Gillum, Billington, and Gordon properly and timely filed their answers and claims on May 3, 2002. On July 3, 2002, Crescent Ship Service moved for a default judgment against all those who had not filed a timely claim; the order was signed on July 10, 2002. Finally, on August 30, 2002 counsel for Steward, Dabney, and Banks filed answers and claims to Crescent Ship's petition for exoneration or liability.
Crescent Ship now moves this Court to strike these untimely answers and claims for failure to timely comply with the orders of this Court, contending that counsel for these three claimants was well aware of the new deadline for filing claims as he was in attendance at the status conference held in this Court's chambers. Counsel for claimants opposes the petitioner's motion, arguing first that Crescent Shipping failed to follow the proper procedures of Rule F because it did not publish the new deadline for claims and, second, that Rule F allows this Court only to extend the deadline for filing claims, but gives no authority to contract that deadline. As an alternative motion, counsel for the claimants asks this Court to use its discretion in allowing the untimely filing of claims.
II. Analysis
Admiralty Rule F(4), governing limitation actions, permits a court to extend the period for filing untimely claims upon a showing of cause. In Golnoy Barge Co. v. M/T SHINOUSSA, 980 F.2d 349 (5th Cir. 1993), the Fifth Circuit provided district courts with the following three-step process to use in determining the presence of such cause was present: "(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." Id. at 351. The matter is within this Court's discretion and is to be based on an "equitable showing." See Texas Gulf Sulpher Co. v. Blue Stack Towing Co., 313 F.2d 359, 363 (5th Cir. 1963).
Considering the facts of the case, the Court finds that claimants have made such an equitable showing. The failure to file claims promptly was not due to some fault of their own, but was rather due to the fault of their attorney in failing to properly note the date for filing the claim. See Alter Barge Line, Inc. v. Consolidated Grain Barge Co., 272 F.3d 396, 397 (5th Cir. 2001) (per curiam) (finding attorney error sufficient cause to allow an untimely claim). The Court notes further, that this case is still pending with a trial date several months away. Further, the existence of these claimants can hardly be said to be unknown to Crescent Ship because they were involved in Lynchburg's limitation action, which has been consolidated with this one. Thus, no one is prejudiced by this ruling. Accordingly, the Court finds that claimants have shown sufficient cause to permit the filing of a late claim. Furthermore, this discussion moots Crescent Ship's Motion to Strike.
III. CONCLUSION
Based on the above reasons, the Court finds that claimants have met the necessary showing to allow a filing of late claims. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for Leave to File the Late Claims of Claude Banks, Alan Dabney, and Jadie Steward be and hereby is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Strike the Answers and Claims of Banks, Dabney, and Steward be and hereby is DENIED AS MOOT.