Opinion
No. 02-0241 Section "N"
February 10, 2003
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is a Motion for Leave to File Late Claim and Answer on Behalf of Pacific Employers Insurance Company. For the reasons that follow, the motion is GRANTED.
I. BACKGROUND
On March 23, 2001, an inland drilling barge dubbed Falcon Rig No. 63 ("Rig 63") capsized in state waters, near the mouth of the Mississippi River. On January 29, 2002, the rig's alleged owner, RB Falcon Drilling USA, Inc. ("RB"), initiated this action, alleging that two individuals (Gilbert Goldman and Fabian Dion) had filed state court suits related to the incident. In its complaint, RB sought: (1) limitation of and/or exoneration from liability; and (2) indemnification from two other companies allegedly connected to the rig's activities, Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. ("Halliburton") and LLOG Exploration Company ("LLOG"). This Court, by order of Judge Ivan Lemelle, set April 1, 2002 as the deadline for filing claims. Goldman and Dion timely filed claims seeking damages for personal injuries. Halliburton and LLOG timely filed claims seeking indemnity from RB.
Judge Lemelle scheduled trial for January 13, 2003, and the parties spent the remainder of 2002 embroiled in discovery and motion practice. On December 6, 2002, Pacific Employers Insurance Company ("Pacific Employers") filed the instant motion, seeking to file a claim against RB for reimbursement of medical and compensation benefits paid to and on behalf of claimant, Gilbert Goldman. On December 17, 2002, Judge Lemelle recused himself on grounds that his son works for Halliburton. The matter was reassigned to this Section, and the January 13 trial date was continued due to conflicts with this Court's calendar. Claimant Goldman has since moved to re-open discovery in this matter. No new trial date has been set.
II. LAW AND ANALYSIS
Supplemental Admiralty Rule F(4) gives the Court "discretion to permit the late filing of a claim in a limitation action." In re TT Boat Corp., 1999 WL 102786 at *1 (E.D. La. Feb. 23, 1999) (Duval, J.). The Fifth Circuit has established a framework "to guide district courts in exercising th[is] discretion." Golnoy Barge Co. v. M/T Shinoussa, 980 F.2d 349, 351 (5th Cir. 1993). The 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, 980 F.2d at 351. The decision turns on a "balancing of the equities." In re Lin-Bar Marine, Inc., 2001 WL 1033606 at *2 (E.D. La. Sept. 6, 2001) (Vance, J.). "Applying equitable principles, late filing is often permitted." Texas Gulf Sulphur Co. v. Blue Stack Towing Co., 313 F.2d 359, 363 (5th Cir. 1963). "Under other circumstances, it is denied." Id.
Rule F(4) states provides: "For cause shown, the court may enlarge the time within which claims may be filed." Fed.R.Civ.P. Supp. Rule F(4).
The Court agrees with the motion's opponents (Goldman and RB) that Pacific Employers' proffered reason for filing late ( i.e., that it was unaware of the deadline) is far from compelling. However, the Court nonetheless finds that the equities weigh in favor of allowing the claim. The limitation proceeding is not only pending and undetermined, but discovery has been re-opened, and no new trial date has been set. Moreover, the potential prejudice asserted by the motion's opponents — delay of the scheduled trial — is no longer a concern.
III. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for Leave to File Late Claim and Answer on Behalf of Pacific Employers Insurance Company is GRANTED.