U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals Joins 5th, 9th, and 11th Circuits: Six-Month Filing Period of Limitation Act is a Claims Processing Rule

In re Seganti, No. 24-1519, 2025 WL 2446640 (2d Cir. Aug. 26, 2025).

By Arthur A. Crais, Adjunct Professor of Law

Dismissal With Prejudice Appropriate for Failure to State a Claim

            This limitation proceeding arises out of a collision of two recreational vessels “near Goose Creek in Nassau County”[1] on May 29, 2022. A suit was filed for personal injuries allegedly sustained by a passenger in the other vessel in New York State Supreme Court on Aug. 7, 2023, after counsel for the plaintiff previously notified Seganti of his representation in September 2022.[2] Seganti filed for limitation on Nov. 1, 2023.[3] The plaintiff in the state court suit then filed a Motion to Dismiss, asserting that the federal court lacked jurisdiction due to the untimely filing of the limitation proceeding.[4]

            The trial judge determined that the prior notice of August 2022 was sufficient to place Seganti on notice of the claim, which triggered the six-month filing period, and thus dismissed the limitation proceeding for lack of jurisdiction.[5] Seganti asserted that the letter was insufficient to trigger the period. This was rebuffed by the panel, which stated that it gave the “who, what, when, where, and how” of the claim.[6] Even when the amount claimed is ambiguous, it provides sufficient notice to the vessel owner.[7]

            Judge Menashi, writing for the court, joined the Fifth, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits in holding that the six-month period to file for limitation is a claims processing rule that does not affect the court’s jurisdiction.[8] Rather than reverse the district judge, the panel modified the judgment and affirmed the dismissal for failure to state a claim under FRCP Rule 12(b)(6).[9] The dismissal is with prejudice.[10]

            A copy of the opinion is attached.

[1] In re Seganti, 2025 WL 2446640 at *1.

[2] Id.

[3] Id.

[4] Id.

[5] Id. at *2.

[6] In re Seganti, 2025 WL 2446640 at *5.

[7] See id.

[8] Id. at *4.

[9] Id. at *6.

[10] Id. at *5 (“As a result, there is no reason to deviate from the general rule that a dismissal for failure to state a claim will be with prejudice.”).