Thompson
Filing
36
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 17 Petitioner's Motion to Strike Notice of Filing Claim and Answer to Petition by Ace; denying 18 Petitioner's Motion for Final Default Judgment Against All Persons and Entities; granting 19 Ace's Response in Opposition to Petitioner's Motion to Strike, or in the Alternative, Motion for Enlargement of Time. Ace shall have up to and including December 1, 2017 to file an amended Claim and, if necessary, an amended Answer in compliance with Rule F(5) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carol Mirando on 11/21/2017. (KBR)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
DAVID THOMPSON, as owner of the
1994 Sea Ray Express 44,
HIN#SERP2089G394, for exoneration
from or limitation of liability
Petitioner,
v.
Case No: 2:17-cv-370-FtM-99CM
ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE
COMPANY,
Respondent.
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court upon review of Petitioner’s Motion to
Strike Notice of Filing Claim and Answer to Petition (“Motion to Strike”) by Ace
American Insurance Company (“Ace”) (Doc. 17) and Petitioner’s Motion for Final
Default Judgment Against All Persons and Entities (“Motion for Default Judgment”)
(Doc. 18), both filed on August 25, 2017; and Ace’s Response in Opposition to
Petitioner’s Motion to Strike, or in the Alternative, Motion for Enlargement of Time
(Doc. 19) filed on August 28, 2017.
Having reviewed the motions and relevant
pleadings, the Court finds that Petitioner’s Motion to Strike (Doc. 17) is due to be
granted in part with leave for Ace to amend its Notice of Filing Claim Responsive to
the Order Granting Monition (“Claim”) and, if necessary, Answer (Docs. 19, 20);
Petitioner’s Motion for Default Judgment (Doc. 18) is due to be denied; and Plaintiff’s
Motion for Enlargement of Time (Doc. 19) is due to be granted.
I.
Background
On June 30, 2017 Petitioner filed a Verified Petition for Exoneration from or
Limitation of Liability. Doc. 1. Petitioner, David Thompson, as owner of the 1994
Sea Ray Express, HIN#SERP2089G394, sought exoneration from or limitation of
liability to the value of his interest in the vessel under the Shipowners Limitation of
Liability Act, 46 U.S.C. § 30501 et seq. Id. at 1-2. On July 21, 2017 the Court
granted Petitioner’s Motion (Doc. 8), and issued an Order of Limitation Injunction
(Doc. 9), Order Approving Petitioner’s Security (Doc. 10), and Order on Monition (Doc.
11). The Order on Monition required all persons asserting claims with respect to the
Petitioner’s Verified Complaint to file their claims with the Court within thirty (30)
days of the Order.
Doc. 11 at 1.
Thus, the deadline to timely file a claim was
Monday, August 21, 2017.1
Three days after the expiration of the deadline to timely file a claim, Ace filed
an Answer (Doc. 14) and Claim (Doc. 15). The following day, Petitioner filed his
Motion to Strike (Doc. 17) and Motion for Default Judgment (Doc. 18).
II.
Motion to Strike
In Petitioner’s Motion to Strike, Petitioner alleges that the Answer and Claim
not only were untimely, but insufficient in that they lack any factual support or basis.
Doc. 17 ¶¶ 7-8. Ace opposes the motion, although it agrees that due to a clerical
error, its answer was untimely. Doc. 19 ¶ 3.
Sunday, August 20, 2017 was thirty days from the date of the Court’s order;
however, because the date fell on a Sunday, the deadline is moved to the following business
day. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a)(1).
1
-2-
“District courts have broad discretion in disposing of motions to strike under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f).” 2 Microsoft Corp. v. Jesse's Computers & Repair, Inc., 211
F.R.D. 681, 683 (M.D. Fla. 2002) (internal citations omitted). Striking a pleading,
however, is a “drastic remedy, which is disfavored by the courts.” Hansen v. ABC
Liquors, Inc., No. 3:09-cv-966-J-34MCR, 2009 WL 3790447, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 9,
2009). Pursuant to Rule 12(f), the Court “may strike from a pleading an insufficient
defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” Fed. R.
Civ. P. 12(f). The court generally does not exercise its discretion to strike under Rule
12(f) “unless the matter sought to be omitted has no possible relationship to the
controversy, may confuse the issues, or otherwise prejudice a party.”
Reyher v.
Trans World Airlines, Inc., 881 F. Supp. 574, 576 (M.D. Fla. 1995).
Here, there is no insufficient defense as Petitioner acknowledges that Ace is
not asserting any affirmative defenses (Doc. 17 ¶ 7), but rather is claiming damages
related to the incident that occurred in or about January 23, 2014 and is the subject
matter of the Petition. Docs. 1, 15. Petitioner asserts, however, that Respondent’s
Claim was insufficient under Rule F(5). See Fed. R. Civ. P. F(5). Rule F(5) requires
that “[e]ach claim shall specify the facts upon which the claimant relies in support of
the claim, the items thereof, and the dates on which the same accrued. If a claimant
desires to contest either the right to exoneration from or the right to limitation of
The Court notes that pursuant to Rule A(2) of Appendix 2C of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, “[t]he Federal Rules of Civil Procedure also apply to [admiralty] proceedings
except to the extent that they are inconsistent with these Supplemental Rules.”
2
-3-
liability the claimant shall file and serve an answer to the complaint.” Fed. R. Civ.
P. F(5).
In this case, Ace filed and served an Answer to the complaint along with its
Claim. Docs. 14, 15. The Claim does nothing more than state Ace’s damages, and
does not clarify the facts upon which Ace relies. See Doc. 14; see also Fed. R. Civ. P.
F(5).
Nor does the Answer provide specific information regarding Ace’s alleged
damages and the factual allegations supporting them; rather, it merely responds to
the allegations in Petitioner’s complaint. See Doc. 14; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. F(5).
As such, Ace has not satisfied the requirements of Rule F(5).
Accordingly,
Petitioner’s Motion to Strike is due to be granted in part. The Court will, however,
give Ace leave to amend its Claim to comply with the requirements of Rule F(5), and
if necessary, its Answer, as discussed below.
III.
Motion for Default Judgment and Respondent’s Motion for Enlargement
of Time
In addition to its Motion to Strike, Petitioner has filed a Motion for Default
Judgment. Doc. 18. In support of its Motion, Petitioner states that as of the date
of the Motion, no claims compliant with Supplemental Rule F of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure had been filed. Id. at ¶ 5. In making this assertion, Petitioner
relies on the arguments advanced in its Motion to Strike. Id. at 2 n. 1. Ace opposes
both motions and seeks an enlargement of time for its untimely filing. Docs. 19, 20.
Although Plaintiff properly effected service pursuant to section Rule F(4),
“[c]ourts have a longstanding policy favoring adjudication of lawsuits on the merits,
thus defaults are disfavored.”
Bateh v. Colquett D. Trucking, Inc., 2011 WL
-4-
4501385, *1 (M.D. Fla. 2011) (citing Kilpatrick v. Town of Davie, 2008 WL 3851588
(S.D. Fla. 2008). Simply because Ace failed to timely respond to the complaint, it
does not show an intentional or reckless disregard for judicial proceedings. See id.
Here, Ace filed its Answer and Claim three days after the Court’s deadline and before
Petitioner filed its motions. Docs. 14, 15. Petitioner will not be prejudiced by the
minimal delay as this case is still in the early stages of litigation, and the deadline
imposed by the Court was not jurisdictional in nature. See Fed. R. Civ. P. F(4).
Moreover, Rule F(4) stipulates that the Court “may enlarge the time within
which claims may be filed” for good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P. F(4). This, in conjunction
with Rule 6(b)(1)(B), allows the Court discretion to grant Ace an extension of time on
motion made after the time has expired if it shows both good cause and excusable
neglect. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1), F(4). Here, the Court finds Ace has shown good
cause for an extension, as well as excusable neglect because Ace’s delay was due to a
clerical error.
Doc. 19 ¶ 3.
Accordingly, the Court will grant Ace’s Motion for
Enlargement of Time and deny Petitioner’s Motion for Default Judgment.
ACCORDINGLY, it is hereby
ORDERED:
1.
Petitioner’s Motion to Strike Notice of Filing Claim and Answer to
Petition by Ace (Doc. 17) is GRANTED in part. Ace is given leave to file an amended
Claim and, if necessary, Answer in compliance with Rule F(5) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure.
-5-
2.
Petitioner’s Motion for Final Default Judgment Against All Persons and
Entities (Doc. 18) is DENIED.
3.
Ace’s Response in Opposition to Petitioner’s Motion to Strike, Or in the
Alternative, Motion for Enlargement of Time (Doc. 19) is GRANTED. Ace shall have
up to and including December 1, 2017 to file an amended Claim and, if necessary, an
amended Answer.
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on this 21st day of November,
2017.
Copies:
Counsel of record
-6-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?