In Re: Maersk Tankers

Filing 186

ORDER denying 177 Motion to Extend the Claim Filing Deadline an Additional 45 Days.(Signed by Magistrate Judge John R Froeschner) Parties notified.(sanderson, 3)

United States District Court
Southern District of Texas

ENTERED
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

May 26, 2016
David J. Bradley, Clerk

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
GALVESTON DIVISION
IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPLAINT
OF MAERSK TANKERS AS, AS OWNER
AND OPERATOR OF THE
M/T CARLA MAERSK FOR
EXONERATION FROM AND/OR
LIMITATION OF LIABILITY

§
§
§
§
§
§

CIVIL ACTION NO. G-15-106
(Consolidated with G-15-cv-237)

ORDER
Before the Court is the “Motion to Extend the Claim Filing Deadline an Additional 45
Days” filed by Enrique Dovalina, counsel for the twelve “Dovalina Claimants”; each of
Dovalina’s clients is claiming personal injuries from chemical inhalation and loss of wages due to
the closure of their work site.
On January 7, 2016, at a Hearing on the Motion to enter a Lone Pine Order, this Court set
a deadline of April 8, 2016, for each group of personal injury and property damage claimants to
submit prima facie proof that their claims were potentially viable. Dovalina did not attend the
Hearing. By April 8, 2016, most parties had complied, but not the twelve Dovalina claimants.
On April 22, 2016, at a Hearing to modify the unproductive Lone Pine Order, the movants argued
for the dismissal of those claimants who had apparently made no attempt to comply with the
original Order. Dovalina, whose clients were already non-compliant, did not attend this Hearing
either. In a Report and Recommendation issued that same day this Court reported the noncompliance to the District Court and recommended dismissal.

Eleven days later and twenty-five days after the original compliance date, Dovalina filed
the instant Motion. It now appears that his clients’ personal injuries were so “minor” that several
of them had not even seen a doctor and that Dovalina had concluded it was not cost-effective to
spend the amount of money necessary to determine whether any of them could even assert a prima
facie case for any personal injury. (See, Objections to Report and Recommendation, Doc, 181).
The Court finds that this admitted failure to comply, or even attempt to comply, would not
constitute good cause for an extension. But more to the point, the whole purpose of a Lone Pine
Order is to test, at an early stage, the potential viability of questionable claims in litigation like this
one, which involves over 4,300 personal injury claimants. Meritless claims1 can thereby be
“weeded out” early in potentially protracted litigation before engaging in extensive, expensive
discovery. Cf. Acuna v. Brown & Group, Inc., 200 F.3d 335, 337 (5th Cir.) cert. denied, 530
U.S. 1229 (2000). The Dovalina Claimants’ inactions have only frustrated the Court’s attempt
to accomplish its purpose.
It is, therefore, ORDERED that Dovalinas’ Motion for a 45-day extension (Instrument no.
177) of the now-expired claim filing deadline of the now-superceded original Lone Pine Order is
DENIED.
DONE at Galveston, Texas, this

26th

1

day of April, 2016.

The Court notes, in passing, that the Dovalina Claimants’ claims for three days of lost
wages while the Port of Houston was closed as a result of the collision are for pure economic
damages and, very likely, would be barred under the rule established long ago in Robins Drydock
& Repair Co. v. Flint, 275 U.S. 303 (1927).
2