Hornbeck Offshore Operators, LLC v. Knox ( 2022 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA HORNBECK OFFSHORE CIVIL NO. 19-00270 OPERATORS, LLC et al * c/w 19-12209 v. * SECTION: T CARLOS KNOX * HON. GREG GUIDRY ORDER Before the Court is Plaintiffs, Hornbeck Offshore Operators, L.L.C., Hornbeck Offshore Services, L.L.C. (together “Hornbeck”), and Encore Food Services, LLC’s (“Encore”) Motion to Dismiss Defendant Carlos Knox’s claims in Knox v. Hornbeck Offshore Services, LLC, Civil Action No. 19-12209.1 The Defendant filed a response.2 For the following reasons, the motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. BACKGROUND This is a consolidated matter involving Hornbeck Offshore Operators, L.L.C., Hornbeck Offshore Services, L.L.C. (together “Hornbeck”), Encore Food Services (“Encore”), and Carlos Knox, a former employee of Encore.3 In August of 2018, Mr. Knox allegedly “slipped on a set of outside stairs” while aboard the HOS BAYOU, a ship owned and operated by Hornbeck.4 Two months later, Mr. Knox filed a complaint against Hornbeck and Encore in Texas state court.5 In January of 2019, after receiving a demand for “payment of maintenance and cure” from Mr. Knox, 1 R. Doc. 78. 2 R. Doc. 85. 3 R. Doc. 2 at 2-3. 4 Id. at 3. 5 Id. at 4. Hornbeck and Encore filed the instant suit seeking a “Declaratory Judgment” against Mr. Knox.6 Five months later, Mr. Knox filed a complaint against Hornbeck and Encore in the Southern District of Texas, asserting negligence and unseaworthiness claims.7 Subsequently, the parties filed a Joint Motion to Consolidate the two cases and the Court granted it.8 Unfortunately, on August 29, 2021, the Court was notified that Mr. Knox had passed away.9 Consequently, Civil Action No. 19-12209 was left without a plaintiff. Now, Hornbeck and Encore have filed a motion to dismiss Mr. Knox’s claims on grounds that he “is deceased [and] no substitute exists” to prosecute his claims in his stead.10 Specifically, Hornbeck and Encore argue that no “party or representative” made a timely motion to substitute the deceased party within the 90-day period provided for in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(a).11 Hornbeck and Encore note that the Court granted the Defendant an additional 30 days to file a motion for substitution, but none was filed.12 Instead, a motion for substitution was entered after 120 days had passed, but while a second extension request remained pending.13 In response, Knox’s former lawyer and the representative of his estate both assert that, because a second extension was “timely requested,” the motion for substitution that fell outside the 120-day window was still timely.14 Further, the two argue the second extension is warranted due to “the lingering effects of a devastating hurricane.”15 6 Id. 3-5. 7 Knox v. Hornbeck Offshore Services, LLC 2:19-cv-12209-GGG-DPC. 8 R. Docs. 31, 33. 9 R. Doc. 67. 10 R. Doc. 78-1 at 1. 11 Id. 12 See Id. 13 R. Doc. 75. 14 See R. Docs. 85 at 2 and 93. 15 R. Doc. 85 at 3. The Court notes that Hurricane Ida caused serious disruptions across southeast Louisiana for many weeks after its landfall in August of 2021. https://www.rmets.org/metmatters/impacts-hurricane-ida. LAW & ANALYSIS Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(a) states that “[i]f a party dies and the claim is not extinguished, the court may order substitution of the proper party” via a motion for substitution filed “by any party” or a “representative” of the decedent. However, “[i]f the motion is not made within 90 days after service of a statement noting the death, the action by or against the decedent must be dismissed.”16 A party may request an “extension of time to comply with Rule 25,” but such matters are at the discretion of the district court.17 In the instant matter, it is uncontested that Mr. Knox’s proposed substitute, the mother of his child and “Provisional Adminastratrix” of his estate, filed a motion for substitution outside of the first 30-day extension granted by the Court.18 The proposed party was served with a Notice of Death on June 30, 2021.19 On September 27, 2021, Knox’s former lawyer requested a 30-day extension.20 Therefore, the time period to file a motion for substitution as required by Rule 25 ended on October 29, 2021. Knox’s former lawyer filed a second extension that same day and a motion to substitute seventeen days later.21 The second extension was not granted. Thus, the motion to substitute was untimely under Rule 25. Accordingly, Knox v. Hornbeck Offshore Operators, LLC et al, 2:19-cv-12209-GGG-DPC is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 16 Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 25. 17 Ray v. Koester, 85 F. App’x 983, 985 (5th Cir. 2004). 18 R. Docs. 83 at 1-2, 90 at 1. 19 R. Doc. 70. 20 R. Doc. 74. 21 R. Doc. 79, 83. However, the impact of Mr. Knox’s absence is not limited to Civil Action No. 19-12209. Rule 25’s language is clear: if. timely motion for substitution is not made by any party, any “action by or against the decedent must be dismissed.””” As no timely motion of substitution was made in either case before the Court, both matters must be dismissed. Therefore, Hornbeck Offshore Operators, LLC et al v. Knox, 2:19-cv-00270-GGG-DPC is also DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. CONCLUSION IT IS ORDERED that Civil Action No. 19-12209 is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Civil Action No. 19-00270 is also DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. New Orleans, Louisiana this 2nd day of February , 2022. Hon.Greg Gerard Guidry “] United States District Judge 22 Red. R. Civ. Pro. 25 (emphasis added).