Fifth Circuit Court Cases - Case Law and Opinions from the 5th Circuit Federal Court - Court of Appeals

	ROMINGER LEGAL
		Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Opinions - 5th Circuit
					Need Legal Help?
					Need Legal Help?
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER			LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS	NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -CLICK HERE

This opinion or court case is from the Fifth Circuit Court or Appeals. Search our site for more cases - CLICK HERE

LEGAL RESEARCH

COURT REPORTERS

PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS

PROCESS SERVERS

DOCUMENT RETRIEVERS

EXPERT WITNESSES

Find a Private Investigator

Find an Expert Witness

Find a Process Server

Case Law - save on Lexis / WestLaw.

Legal News - Legal Headlines

United States Court of Appeals,
Fifth Circuit.
Nos. 92-2049, 92-2208.
GOLNAY BARGE COMPANY, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
M/T SHINOUSSA, etc., et al., Defendants-Appellees,
v.
Thomas FILIP, Martha Sullivan, et al., Claimants-Appellants.
GOLNAY BARGE COMPANY, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
M/T SHINOUSSA, etc., et al., Defendants-Appellees,
v.
Rua Van LE, A Dinh Tu, et al., Claimants-Appellants.
Jan. 6, 1993.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas.
Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, GARWOOD and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Several groups of proposed claimants in three related limitation proceedings appeal the district
court's order denying them permission to file late claims. We vacate the court's order and remand this
case for reconsideration of appellants' motions according to standards we established in Texas Gulf
Sulphur Company v. Blue Stack Towing Co., 313 F.2d 359 (5th Cir.1963).
I.
This litigation arises out of an oil spill that occurred in the Houston Ship Channel in July of
1990. After the spill, four shipping companies filed three separate limitation of liability proceedings,
in the following order: (1) the Fidelis Shipping Corp. ("Fidelis"), owner of the M/T HELLESPONT
FAITH, in August of 1990; (2) the Shinoussa Shipping Corp. ("Shinoussa"), owner of the M/T
SHINOUSSA, in August of 1990; and (3) the Golnay Barge Co. ("Golnay") and Apex R.E. & T.

Inc. ("Apex"), owners of the Tug CHANDY N and several barges, in January of 1991. The district
court consolidated the three cases.
In August of 1990, the district court issued monition orders requiring that claims against
Fidelis and Shinoussa be filed by November 1, 1990. In January of 1991, the court issued a monition
order requiring that claims against Golnay and Apex be filed by April 15, 1991. In accordance with
these orders, notice of the first deadline was published for four consecutive weeks in the Houston
Chronicle. Notice of the second deadline was similarly published in the Houston Post.
This appeal concerns three groups of people who moved for leave to file late claims. The first
group, "the Halili claimants," filed claims in March of 1991, after the deadline applicable to claims
against Fidelis and Shinoussa, but before the deadline applicable to Golnay and Apex. They allege
that they were unaware of the deadlines because their attorney was unfamiliar with admiralty law.
The second group, "the Vietnamese claimants," allege that they were unaware of the monition
deadlines because they could not read English. Some Vietnamese claimants filed after the first
deadline and before the second. Others so ught to file claims in July and August of 1991. "The
nonresident claimants,"--the third group--allege that they were unaware of the monition deadlines
because they did not reside in the area where notice was published.
A magistrate judge heard evidence on the motions. It recommended that the district court
deny the Halili motions, grant some of the Vietnamese motions, and grant the nonresident motions.
The district court, however, denied all motions to permit late claims for the following reasons:
The Court finds that the equities weigh in favor of denying the motions to file late claims.
More than 600 claims have already been filed, and the Court is of the opinion that extending
the deadline beyond the established dates will result in a flurry of additional motions to file
late claims. In an effort to bring this litigation to an end, it is therefore ORDERED that the
... motions ... are DENIED.
This appeal followed.
II.
Supplemental Admiralty Rule F(4) provides: "For cause shown, the court may enlarge the
time within which claims may be filed." As we have interpreted it, this language allows for the filing
of a claim nunc pro tunc. Texas Gulf, 313 F.2d at 360. The appellate standard of review is abuse

of discretion. Lloyd's Leasing Ltd. v. Bates, 902 F.2d 368, 371 (5th Cir.1990). The district court's
decision must be "sound," and not "arbitrary." In Re: Oil Spill by the Amoco Cadiz, 1982 A.M.C.
1233, 1240 (7th Cir.).
In Texas Gulf, Judge Brown established the framework for this circuit to guide district courts
in exercising their discretion to allow or refuse late claims. Citing a limitation of liability proceeding's
short limitation period and lack of formal process, we "readily accept[ed]" an "equitable" principle
concerning late claims: "so long as the limitation proceeding is pending and undetermined, and the
rights of the parties are not adversely affected, the court will freely grant permission to file late claims
... upon a showing of the reasons therefore." Id. at 362-63. Thus a district court ruling on a motion
to file a late claim, should consider (1) whether the proceeding is pending and undetermined, (2)
whether granting the motion will adversely affect the right s of the parties, and (3) the claimant's
reasons for filing late. We emphasized that "relief from a tardy claim is not a matter of right. It
depends on an equitable showing." Texas Gulf, 313 F.2d at 263 (citations omitted).
The reasons assigned by the district court for denying appellants' late claims do not reflect
a consideration of the Texas Gulf criteria summarized above. We conclude that we must vacate the
district court's order and remand this case to the district court to reconsider its ruling under the test
we established in Texas Gulf. The motions should be considered in light of the circumstances that
existed at the time the district court issued its original order.
VACATED and REMANDED.