Opinion
Civil Action No: 01-1355, Section: "R" (4)
September 6, 2001.
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is Claimant Joseph P. Parfait's Motion to File a Late Answer and Claim. For the following reasons, the Court grants Parfait's Motion.
I. Background
This litigation arises out of a September 28, 2000 crewboat collision between the M/V MR. JACOB, owned and operated by Lin-Bar Marine, Inc., and the M/V HN. Plaintiff-in-limitation, Lin-Bar Marine, Inc. filed a limitation action on May 3, 2001. The Court set a cut-off-date of July 3, 2001 for filing claims and answers in the limitation action. Lin-Bar Marine published notice of the limitation action once a week for four successive weeks in The Times Picayune, New Orleans, Louisiana, The Houma, Courier, Louisiana and The Daily Cornet, Thibodaux, Louisiana. Lin-Bar also notified each potential claimant, including Parfait, by certified letter on May 18, 2001 of the limitation action and the deadline for filing claims.
On July 13, 2001, Parfait filed a Motion in this Court for leave to File a Late Answer and Claim. Lin-Bar Marine opposes the Motion.
II Discussion
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims Rule F(4) states that when a limitation of liability proceeding is instituted in federal court, the court is empowered to establish a monition period during which all claimants must file their respective claims or face default. Supplemental Admiralty Rule F(4) additionally gives district courts discretion to allow a party to file a claim in a limitation proceeding after the claim bar date has passed.
Although relief from a late claim is not a matter of right, it is within the court's discretion, and applying equitable principles, late claims are often permitted. See Texas Gulf Sulphur Co. v. Blue Stack Towing Co., 313 F.2d 359, 363 (5th Cir. 1963) (noting that "relief from a tardy claim is not a matter of right — [i]t depends on an equitable showing"). The Fifth Circuit has established factors that district court should consider in determining whether to allow a late-filed claim: (1) whether the proceeding is pending and undetermined, (2) whether allowing the claim will adversely affect the rights of the parties, and (3) the claimant's reasons for filing late. See Golnoy Barge Company v. M/T SHINOUSSA, et al, 980 F.2d 349, 351 (5th Cir. 1993). In this case, the limitation action is still pending. The preliminary conference was just held on September 6, 2001. The trial date is set for June 24, 2002. In addition, the Court finds that since Parfait's claim was filed only 10 days late, any potential prejudice to either Lin-Bar Marine or to the other claimants would be small.
Parfait does not dispute that he did receive the letter from Lin-Bar Marine informing him of the limitations proceeding and the deadline. The Court notes that the copy of the letter sent that Lin-Bar Marine submitted in its opposition memorandum does not actually contain the claim bar deadline. (Complainant's Mem. Opp'n Mot., Ex. A.) Parfait points out that the deadline was actually contained in the pleadings on page 18 in paragraph 3, rather than in the body of the letter itself. (Claimant's Reply Mem., at 2.) In this case, Parfait did not seek assistance of counsel until after the deadline had run. Parfait's attorney represents Parfait as "a relatively unsophisticated, uneducated man who has spent the bulk of his worklife working on vessels." (Claimant's Reply Mem., at 1.)
Based upon this evidence and a balancing of the equities, the Court finds that Parfait's Motion to File a Late Answer and Claim should be granted.
III. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants Joseph Parfait's Motion to File a Late Answer and Claim.