Maressa v. A.H. Robins Co., Inc.
| Citation | 839 F.2d 220 |
| Decision Date | 16 February 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 87-1041,87-1041 |
| Parties | Wilma M. MARESSA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. A.H. ROBINS COMPANY, INCORPORATED; Official Committee of Equity Security Holders; Dalkon Shield Claimants' Committee; Legal Representative of the Future Tort Claimants, Defendants-Appellants. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
Linda Jenkins Thomason (William R. Cogar; Clifford W. Perrin, Jr.; James S. Crockett, Jr.; Mays & Valentine, Richmond, Va., Michael L. Cook; Dennis J. Drebsky; Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, New York City, on brief), for defendants-appellants.
James B. Tuttle (Harvey and Harvey, Mumford & Kingsley, Albany, N.Y., Matthew N. Ott, Richmond, Va., on brief), for plaintiff-appellee.
Before RUSSELL, WIDENER and CHAPMAN, Circuit Judges.
A.H. Robins Company, Inc. appeals the order of the district court granting Wilma M. Maressa leave to file a proof of claim subsequent to the bar date of April 30 1986 set by the court. At the hearing on Maressa's motion for relief from the bar date pursuant to Local Rule 7(f) and Rules 60(b) and 55(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the court found that excusable neglect was not established. Nevertheless, the court held that
justice requires that we permit the filing of the claim. Robins had notice of it. There was a lawsuit pending. I don't think it sets any precedent except as to lawsuits that were pending, and they were on notice. I would simply direct instead of calling it an amended one, go ahead and present an order permitting the filing of the claim....
Because we believe the district court abused its discretion in exercising its general equitable powers, we remand this case to the district court for further consideration under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b).
Maressa filed an action against Robins on July 1, 1985 in the United States District Court for the Western District of New York seeking damages for injuries caused by her use of a Dalkon Shield. The action was stayed when Robins filed its bankruptcy petition on August 21, 1985. Thereafter, Maressa's claim was listed in Robins' bankruptcy schedule as an unliquidated, contingent and disputed claim. Pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 3003(c)(3), the district court established April 30, 1986 as the bar date for the filing of claims against Robins. Maressa received notification of the bar date through her attorney. Her attorney also served as counsel to a number of other Dalkon Shield claimants and ultimately filed approximately thirty separate claims prior to the bar date. Unfortunately, in the words of Maressa's attorney, "as a result of th[e] large influx of cases and the blizzard of paperwork that it involved, our obligation to file a separate Proof of Claim on behalf of Wilma Maressa ... was overlooked, and no Proof of Claim was filed."
Bankruptcy Rule 3003(c)(2) expressly requires...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McDonald v. Centra
...absence of congressional intent to the contrary," Cook v. Deltona Corp., 753 F.2d 1552, 1562 (11th Cir.1985). See Maressa v. A.H. Robins Co., 839 F.2d 220, 221 (4th Cir.1988) (Congressional intent precluded application of general equitable principles of tolling to time limits for filing pro......
-
In re Standard Insulations, Inc.
...Analytical Sys., Inc., 933 F.2d 939, 942 (11th Cir.1991); In re Vertientes, Ltd., 845 F.2d 57, 60 (3d Cir.1988); Maressa v. A.H. Robins Co., 839 F.2d 220, 221 (4th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 826, 109 S.Ct. 76, 102 L.Ed.2d 53; In re South Atlantic Fin. Corp., 767 F.2d 814, 817 (11th C......
-
Pioneer Investment Services Company v. Brunswick Associates Limited Partnership
...rather than on the effect on others), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1015, 106 S.Ct. 1197, 89 L.Ed.2d 311 (1986); see also Maressa v. A.H. Robins Co., 839 F.2d 220, 221 (CA4 1988) (no exception to claim filing deadlines based on general equitable Although the Court pays lipservice to the existence ......
-
In re Tucker
...may lead to unwelcome results, but they prompt parties to act and they produce finality"). See also, Maressa v. A.H. Robins Co. Inc., 839 F.2d 220, 221 (4th Cir.) (per curiam) (interpreting Rule 3003(c)(3) in a Chapter 11 case, the court said "the clear Congressional intent to require filin......