Opinion
Civil Action No: 00-1716 Section: "L" (4)
September 17, 2001
MINUTE ENTRY
On March 02, 2001, the defendants, Singleton Trading, Inc., Atlantic Shipping Agencies, Ltd., and Seascot Ship Management, filed a Motion for Leave to File Amended and Supplemental Answer and Counterclaim (Doc, #11). The defendants seek to amend and supplement their original answer to assert a counterclaim against the plaintiff, Panama Canal Commission ("PCC"). The PCC challenges the Motion for Leave to Amend on the grounds that: (1) the amendment is futile because the limitations period ran pursuant to 22 U.S.C.A. § 3771; and (2) the motion would result in undue prejudice because it would lead to fruitless discovery.
I. Factual Summary
This suit arises out of a December 02, 1999 incident in which the M/V Avon, a vessel owned and operated by the defendant allided with miter gates 68 and 69 of the Pedro Miguel Locks of the Panama Canal. The day after the allision, the Local Board of Inspectors began to investigate the cause of the allision pursuant to 22 U.S.C.A. § 3771.
A miter gate is a hinged wing gate that opens into the lock chamber and is flushed into the chamber walls when in the fully open position.
An allision is the running of one vessel into or against another, as distinguished from a collision, i.e., the running of two vessels against each other.
On December 29, 1999, the defendants filed an administrative claim with the PCC seeking damages for the delay and detention alleged to have been caused by the PCC's demand for security from defendants for the allision damage to the Panama Canal. On June 06, 2000, the Department of Justice denied defendants' claim due to defendants' failure to document their alleged damages. The PCC filed the instant action on June 12, 2000. On July 28, 2000, the defendants filed an answer and counterclaim in which they alleged the PCC was liable for damages caused by their delay and detention of the M/V Avon.
The defendants now seek to amend their answer and assert a counterclaim alleging that the PCC's employees were negligent because they failed to take adequate measures to prevent, avoid, or minimize the allision. The defendants, contend that they learned on February 01, 2001, that the PCC's employees unreasonably delayed and detained the M/V Avon which resulted in extensive damage. The defendants claim that they received this information during the depositions of Jorge Quijano, the Marine Operations Director for the PCC, and Sam Mann, the Marine Traffic Control Center Manager.
The defendants further contend that these witnesses testified that the PCC personnel controlled and supervised the journey through the locks at the time of the allision and did not take measures to prevent, avoid, or minimize the allision. The defendants however, did not attach deposition excerpts supporting their assessment of the testimony.
The PCC opposes defendants' request to amend the answer and file a counterclaim on the grounds that the defendants did not assert a claim in the administrative proceeding against the PCC for its alleged negligent supervision of the M/V Avon during its journey through the locks of the PCC. According to the PCC, the defendants failure to exhaust their administrative remedies precludes the defendants from recovering pursuant to the proposed amendments. The PCC further contends that the defendants can not submit an administrative request for review because their right to do so expired on or before December 31, 2000.
II Analysis A. Limitations
The defendants contend that the Motion to File an Amended Counterclaim should be denied. The plaintiff opposes the motion claiming that the amendment is time barred under 22 U.S.C.A. § 3771.
The relevant portion of Title 22 U.S.C.A. § 3771 states that "no payment of damages on a claim may be made under this section unless the claim is filed with the Commission within 1 year after the date of the injury or by November 18, 1998, whichever is later." 22 U.S.C.A. § 3771.
In the instant case, the allision occurred on December 02, 1999. The defendants did not seek to assert a counterclaim against the Commission until March 02, 2001, fifteen months later. Plaintiff argues that this delay in filing a claim with the Commission bars defendants' counterclaim challenging the PCC's alleged negligence in failing to take appropriate measures to prevent, avoid or minimize the allision.
The claimant is not required to establish the full extent of the claim with particularity at the time of the incident. See Soland v. Panama Canal Commission, 1999 WL 596258, *2 (E.D. La. 1999) (Porteous, J.) (citing Royal Interocean Lines v. Panama Canal Company, 514 F. Supp. 472, 475 (D.C.Z. 1981)). However, a claim has not been made for purposes of 22 U.S.C.A. § 3771 until the basis for the claim has been laid out for the PCC. See Soland, 1999 WL at *2. "The basis for the claim is satisfied by the combination of notice of damage, an investigation prior to departing the Canal, and a hearing by the Board of Local Inspectors, which gives the PCC an opportunity to investigate the damage on its own. Id. The hearing allows the PCC to argue before the Board that alleged damages are not attributable to the fault of its employees. Id.
Here, the Local Board of Inspectors ("BLI") of the Panama Canal Commission investigated the allision on December 03, 1999, the day after the allision occurred. In its investigation, the BLI elicited testimony from various witnesses of PCC and defendants . . . However, the basis of defendants' counterclaim was never "laid out" for the PCC. The defendants, in their December 29, 1999, claim filed with the PCC, only made a claim for damages arising from the alleged "delay and detention" caused by the PCC's demand for security for the allision's damage to the miter gates. Nowhere in their claim with the PCC did the defendants assert that the PCC was liable for damages caused to the M/V Avon due to the negligence of PCC employees. Thus, the PCC did not receive notice of the damage or an opportunity to investigate the damage on its own. Consequently, the counterclaim, filed more than fifteen months after the incident, is barred by the one year limitations period imposed by 22 U.S.C.A. § 3771.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Motion for Leave to File Amended and Supplemental Answer and Counterclaim #11) is hereby DENIED.