DEFENDANT MANUFACTURER'S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE AN APPEAL GRANTED IN HORIZON CRUISES LEGIONNAIRE'S DISEASE CASES
In re: HORIZON CRUISES LITIGATION; In re: LITIGATION JOINT DISCOVERY M/V HORIZON LEGIONNAIRES DISEASE; CELEBRITY CRUISES INC., and FANTASIACRUISING INC., Plaintiffs, - against - ESSEF CORP., PAC-FAB, INC., and STRUCTURAL EUROPE N.V. (f/n/a SFC), Defendants.
Master File 94 Civ. 5270 (JCF), 94 Civ. 6147 (JCF), 95 Civ.0374 (JCF)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8679
May 15, 2002, Decided
May 15, 2002, Filed
DISPOSITION: Defendants' motion to extend the time to file an appeal in each of the Horizon actions granted. Defendants' application to direct the clerk of court to enter judgments denied. Silivanch plaintiffs' motion for sanctions denied. Defendants' motion for a stay of execution of the judgments pending appeal granted.
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: In related lawsuits, plaintiff passengers obtained judgments against defendants, cruise lines and manufacturers and distributors, because the passengers contracted Legionnaire's Disease aboard a cruise ship. Included among the postjudgment applications were the manufacturer's motions to extend the time to file a notice of appeal and to stay enforcement of the judgments pending appeal, and one set of passengers' motion for sanctions.
OVERVIEW: The first issue presented was whether the manufacturer timely filed and properly served its motion for an extension. A technical defect in the motion had been corrected, so the court accepted the motion as timely filed. The manufacturer, however, served only on the attorney for one set of passengers -- the attorney who served as liaison counsel with respect to discovery and other matters. Good cause existed to excuse the manufacturer's error; despite this technical flaw, the court's scheduling order gave counsel in all of the cases notice of the manufacturer's motion, and the prejudice to the manufacturer would be extraordinary if the court rejected the motion. On the merits of the motion, excusable neglect justified granting the manufacturer the extension; the manufacturer's attorney relied on the cruise lines' attorney's misstatement of the appeal deadline. Regarding the passengers' motion, although some of the manufacturer's arguments were unfounded, it ultimately prevailed on the motion; thus, sanctions were not warranted. Finally, the court granted the manufacturer's motion for a stay provided that the manufacturer post the required bond.
OUTCOME: The court granted the manufacturer's motion to extend the time to file a notice of appeal. The court conditionally granted the manufacturer's motion for a stay of enforcement of the judgments pending appeal. The court denied the passengers' motion for sanctions.
