This was a Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA) claim brought by the plaintiff underwriter, International Cargo Loss Prevention Inc, against the defendants, Mediterranean Shipping Co (USA) Inc (MSC USA), and Mediterranean Shipping Co SA (MSC SA), for damage to a shipment of frozen shrimp that the defendants, common carriers, were contracted to transport from Ennore, India, to Chicago, Illinois. The relevant sea waybill was signed by the shrimp supplier and MSC USA as agent for MSC SA.

The defendants twice extended the filing deadline for the complaint, providing a date and time by which the plaintiff needed to file suit. Although the parties agreed on the date of the deadline, they disagreed on whether the defendants' time portion of the deadline was according to the Central European time zone or Central Standard time zone. The plaintiff filed its initial complaint on 15 February 2023 at 17h32 Eastern Standard time. On 16 February 2023, the Clerk of Court notified the plaintiff that its complaint was deficient because the attorney signature was incomplete and the civil cover lacked sufficient information. The plaintiff refiled its amended complaint later that same day.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss on three grounds. First, the plaintiff's claims were time-barred by COGSA's statute of limitations because the plaintiff had to refile its complaint a day after the statutory period expired. Second, the defendants argued that even if the plaintiff's complaint was filed on the day the statutory period expired, it was nonetheless still time-barred because it was filed hours after the defendants' alleged deadline expired. In support of this argument, the defendants attached extension emails and Google screenshots. Third, the defendant argued that the plaintiff failed to state a claim against MSC USA.

Held: Motion granted in part and denied in part.

As to the first argument, the defendants contend that the plaintiff's claims are time-barred by COGSA's statute of limitations because its operative complaint was not filed until 16 February 2023. The defendants' argument is without merit. 'A complaint is deemed filed when the Clerk of Court receives it': Abusikin v City of New York, No 18-CV-4582 (AT), 2021 WL 930349 *3 (SD NY, 11 March 2021) (quoting Kalican v Dzurenda 583 F App'x 21, 23 (2d Cir 2014)). The plaintiff's filing error does not void the 15 February 2023 filing date for statute of limitations purposes. Here, the plaintiff promptly remedied its deficient complaint on the same day that it was notified of its mistakes. Accordingly, the plaintiff's complaint was commenced on 15 January 2023 and is not time-barred.

Because the defendants' second argument relies entirely on extraneous exhibits that the Court will not consider, the Court will not address the argument at this time.

As to the third argument, the defendants argue that the plaintiff failed to state a claim against MSC USA. The plaintiff alleges that both MSC SA and MSC USA issued and breached the sea waybill. The defendants highlight that 'it was issued only by MSC SA'. '[C]ommon law rules of agency' apply to interpretation of maritime contracts: CMA-CGM (Canada) Inc v World Shippers Consultants Ltd 921 F Supp 2d 1, 6 (ED NY 2013). Here, MSC USA's signature on the sea waybill plainly states that it is signing 'as Agent on behalf of the Carrier MSC Mediterranean Shipping Company S.A.' The plaintiff has acknowledged that MSC USA is the agent of MSC SA. In this case, MSC USA can be found liable only if it manifested an intent to be bound to the contract: see CMA-CGM 6. The plaintiff does not allege any facts to support that MSC USA manifested an intent to be bound to the sea waybill. MSC USA is therefore dismissed from the case.