In Re: Mike Hooks L L C

Filing 62

MEMORANDUM ORDER. For the reasons stated above, the court ORDERS that the Motion for Leave to File Third-Party Complaint and Rule 14(C) Tender [doc. 49]; Motion to Enlarge Claims Period Pursuant to Rule F(4), Set Aside Default, and for Leave to Fil e Claim in Limitation [doc. 57]; and Unopposed Motion to Withdraw Opposition, Motion to Vacate Order, and Motion to Place Limitation Action on Trial Docket [doc. 61] be GRANTED. Accordingly, the default is VACATED solely as to putative claimant Conra d Shipyard, LLC and the clerk is requested to docket both the proposed Third-Party Complaint and Rule 14(C) Tender [doc. 49, att. 2] and Claim in Limitation [doc. 57, att. 3]. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the courts prior ruling [docs. 37, 38] is VACAT ED as to the modification and lifting of the stay and that the stay issued against state court proceedings [doc. 6] is REIMPOSED. Finally, this matter is hereby REFERRED to the Magistrate Judge for a scheduling conference to set the limitation action for trial. Signed by Judge James D Cain, Jr on 4/30/2024. (crt,Crick, S)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
LAKE CHARLES DIVISION
IN RE: MIKE HOOKS L L C

CASE NO. 2:20-CV-00691

JUDGE JAMES D. CAIN, JR.

MAGISTRATE JUDGE LEBLANC

MEMORANDUM ORDER
Before the court is a Motion to Enlarge Claims Period [doc. 57] filed by putative
claimant Conrad Shipyard, LLC in this limitation proceeding. Limitation defendant David
Tyrone Lavan, who is plaintiff in the related state court suit, does not oppose the motion
and requests that the court vacate its prior order [doc. 38] lifting the stay in this matter.
Doc. 61.
I.

BACKGROUND
This suit arises from injuries that David Lavan, an employee of Mike Hooks LLC
(“MHL”), sustained during a fire on a dredge vessel owned by MHL on April 29, 2020.
Doc. 1. MHL filed a complaint for exoneration from or limitation of liability in this court
on June 1, 2020. Id. The court issued a monition order requiring that any claims in this
matter be filed by December 15, 2020. Doc. 7. Lavan was the only claimant to appear
within that time. Doc. 19. Pursuant to Rule F of the Supplemental Rules for Certain

Admiralty and Maritime Claims of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the court then
issued a clerk’s entry of default as to all unknown claimants in January 2021. Doc. 36.
The following month, the court granted Lavan’s motion to (1) dismiss MHL’s claim
for declaratory judgment on his right to maintenance and cure and (2) partially lift the stay
on his state court suit imposed by the limitation action, subject to certain stipulations. Doc.
37. Accordingly, Lavan filed suit against MHL in the Fourteenth Judicial District Court,
Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana. Recently, MHL was granted leave to file a third-party demand
against Conrad Shipyard, LLC (“Conrad”). Conrad was served with this pleading on March
18, 2024. Doc. 57, att. 2. MHL has also sought leave to file a third-party complaint and
Rule 14(C) Tender against Conrad in this matter. Doc. 49. Conrad contends that, as a result
of these newly-asserted claims, it has causes of action against MHL that must be set forth
in a claim in limitation before it can pursue these in state court. Doc. 57. Accordingly, it
requests that the court set aside the default against unknown claimants, enlarge the time
under Rule F(4) for filing claims in response to MHL’s complaint in limitation, and grant
it leave to file its proposed Answer Claims in Limitation. Id. Lavan does not oppose the
motion and has withdrawn his former opposition to MHL’s Motion for Leave to File ThirdParty Complaint and Rule 14(C) Tender. Doc. 61. He also requests that the court vacate its
former ruling lifting the stay on state court proceedings and set the limitation action for
trial. Id.

Page 2 of 5

II.
LAW & APPLICATION
Under Supplemental Admiralty Rule F(4), the district court has discretion to allow
a party to file a claim in a limitation proceeding after the monition date has passed. Supp.
R. F(4); Lloyds Leasing Ltd. v. Bates, 902 F.2d 368, 371 (5th Cir. 1990). In exercising this
discretion, the court should consider the following factors: (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 Barge Co. v. M/T
Shinoussa, 980 F.2d 349, 351 (5th Cir. 1993) (citing Texas Gulf Sulphur Co. v. Blue Stack
Towing Co., 313 F.2d 359, 362–63 (5th Cir. 1993)). “[R]elief from a tardy claim is not a
matter of right” and “depends on an equitable showing.” Id.
In this matter the limitation proceeding is still pending. There is no prejudice
concern under the second factor, because Conrad’s claims are derivative of Mr. Lavan’s
existing claims filed timely before the monition date and there has been no final
determination of liability. See In re Complaint of M/V President Kennedy, Ltd., 2000 WL
351425, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 5, 2000) (such concerns were not implicated by a claim for
indemnification or contribution in respect of cargo damage, for which a timely claim had
already been filed in the limitations proceeding); Crescent Towing & Salvage Co. v. M/V
JALMA TOPIC, 2021 WL 5919505, at *1 (E.D. La. Dec. 15, 2021) (no prejudice concern
when liability had not yet been decided). Finally, Conrad appears blameless for the late
filing—it was not served with MHL’s third-party demand until March 2024, over three
years after the monition date. Accordingly, Conrad has shown good cause under Texas Gulf

Page 3 of 5

to set aside the default and enlarge the claims period for the sole purpose of allowing it to
file its claim in limitation.
Conrad was not a party to the stipulations made by Lavan, which allowed the state
court litigation to proceed. Lavan also represents that Conrad will not join in these
stipulations. Doc. 61, att. 1. As Lavan agrees, the stay on prosecution of those claims must
be reimposed in order to protect MHL’s right to pursue limitation. See doc. 6. The court’s
prior ruling [docs. 37, 38] will therefore be vacated in that regard and a trial date will be
set for the limitation action in this court. The portion of the ruling addressing Lavan’s
motion to dismiss remains in place.
III.

CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the court ORDERS that the Motion for Leave to File
Third-Party Complaint and Rule 14(C) Tender [doc. 49]; Motion to Enlarge Claims Period
Pursuant to Rule F(4), Set Aside Default, and for Leave to File Claim in Limitation [doc.
57]; and Unopposed Motion to Withdraw Opposition, Motion to Vacate Order, and Motion
to Place Limitation Action on Trial Docket [doc. 61] be GRANTED. Accordingly, the
default is VACATED solely as to putative claimant Conrad Shipyard, LLC and the clerk
is requested to docket both the proposed Third-Party Complaint and Rule 14(C) Tender
[doc. 49, att. 2] and Claim in Limitation [doc. 57, att. 3].
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the court’s prior ruling [docs. 37, 38] is
VACATED as to the modification and lifting of the stay and that the stay issued against
state court proceedings [doc. 6] is REIMPOSED. Finally, this matter is hereby

Page 4 of 5

REFERRED to the Magistrate Judge for a scheduling conference to set the limitation
action for trial.
THUS DONE AND SIGNED in Chambers on the 30th day of April, 2024.

__________________________________
JAMES D. CAIN, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 5 of 5