Doss v. K2 M/V et al, No. 2:2015cv01539 - Document 56 (E.D. La. 2016)

Court Description: ORDER & REASONS granting in part and denying in part 43 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Sarah S. Vance on 11/29/2016. (mmm)

Download PDF
Doss v. K2 M/V et al Doc. 56 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA DONALD DOSS CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO. 15-1539 M/ V K2, ET AL. SECTION “R” (5) ORD ER AN D REAS ON S Defendant Associated Term inals, Inc. m oves the Court to grant sum m ary judgm ent on all of plaintiff Donald Doss’s claim s. For the following reasons, the Court grants sum m ary judgm ent on Doss’s claim s arising under the J ones Act, 46 U.S.C. § 30 10 4, an d his claim for m aintenance and cure. Because the Court finds that Doss has alleged sufficient facts to support a claim for general m aritim e negligence, and Associated Term inals has failed to show that there is no genuine dispute regarding these facts, the Court denies sum m ary judgm ent on this claim . I. BACKGROU N D In Spring 20 14, plaintiff Donald Doss worked for defen dant Dockside Lin em en, Inc. 1 Dockside Linem en provides tem porary laborers on an as-needed, day-to-day basis to com panies in south Louisiana. 2 These com panies include bulk-cargo term inal operators, such as defendant Associated Term inals, Inc. Doss’s payroll records reflect that, from February 20 14 through May 20 14, Doss worked a total of fifty-seven days for Dockside Linem en, which outsourced Doss to four different com panies. Doss spent four days out of fifty-seven (February 24, April 10 , May 8, and May 12) working for Associated 1 R. Doc. 27 at 1 ¶2. 2 Id. at ¶¶1-3. Dockets.Justia.com Term inals. 3 Associated Term inals owns and operates a structure currently known as the M/ V MGMT (form erly known as the M/ V K2). 4 When Doss was assigned to work for Associated Term inals, he worked on board the MGMT loading and unloading grain from barges or vessels on the Mississippi River. 5 As Doss was transferring grain on board the MGMT on May 9, 20 14, he slipped and fell, injuring his neck, shoulder, hip, and other parts of his body. 6 Doss filed this suit on May 8 , 20 14. 7 On April 15, 20 16, the Court granted Dockside Lin em en’s m otion for sum m ary judgm ent on Doss’s J ones Act claim s. 8 In its order, the Court found that Doss’s short stint on the MGMT does not qualify him as a seam an eligible to invoke the J ones Act. 9 Associated Term inals now m oves for sum mary judgm ent on the sam e grounds. 10 In response, Doss concedes that his J ones Act claim s and claim s for m aintenance and cure 3 See R. Doc. 17-2 at 6-9. 4 Doss’s com plaint refers to the “M/ V K2,” while his opposition to the m otion for sum m ary judgm ent refers to the “M/ V MGMT.” The record reflects that both nam es refer to the sam e structure. See, e.g., R. Doc. 17, Exhibit A, at 1 ¶ 5 (Declaration of Lin da Slatten) (“Doss work[ed] on Associated Term inals’ m idstream -transfer term inal called the MGMT (previously known as ‘K2’).”); R. Doc. 17, Exhibit B, at 18 (“For the record, let’s say when we refer to the K2, okay, is now called MGMT, okay? So those are interchangeable term s.”), 54 (“At location, MGMT. That’s the new nam e for K2 . . . .”). 5 See R. Doc. 27, Exhibit A, at 1 ¶1. 6 R. Doc. 27, Exhibit C, at 34-40 . 7 See R. Doc. 1. 8 R. Doc. 41. 9 Id. 10 R. Doc. 43. 2 are precluded by the Court’s earlier finding. Doss, however, m aintains that his com plaint states a claim for general m aritim e negligence against Associated Term inals, and that Associated Term in als has failed to m eet its sum m ary judgm ent burden as to this claim . Associated Term inals, m eanwhile, argues that Doss’s com plaint states only two causes of action—J ones Act negligence and unseaworthiness—and that Doss never asserted a claim for general m aritim e negligence. II. LEGAL STAN D ARD Sum m ary judgm ent is warranted when “the m ovant shows that there is no genuin e dispute as to any m aterial fact and the m ovant is entitled to judgm ent as a m atter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); see also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (198 6); Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 10 69, 10 75 (5th Cir. 1994). When assessing whether a dispute as to any m aterial fact exists, the Court considers “all of the evidence in the record but refrain[s] from m aking credibility determ in ations or weighing the evidence.” Delta & Pine Land Co. v. N ationw ide Agribusiness Ins. Co., 530 F.3d 395, 398 -99 (5th Cir. 20 0 8). All reasonable inferences are drawn in favor of the nonm oving party, but “unsupported allegations or affidavits setting forth ‘ultim ate or conclusory facts and conclusions of law’ are in sufficient to either support or defeat a m otion for sum m ary judgm ent.” Galindo v. Precision Am . Corp., 754 F.2d 1212, 1216 (5th Cir. 1985); see also Little, 37 F.3d at 10 75. “No genuine dispute of fact exists if the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the non-m oving party.” EEOC v. Sim baki, Ltd., 767 F.3d 475, 48 1 (5th Cir. 20 14). 3 III. D ISCU SSION As noted, the parties agree that sum m ary judgm ent is appropriate as to Doss’s J ones Act claim s again st Associated Term inals. The Court therefore need only decide (1) whether Doss has properly asserted a claim for general m aritim e negligence and, if so, (2) whether sum m ary judgm ent is appropriate as to that claim . A. W h e th e r D o s s H as As s e rte d a Claim N e glige n ce Tu rn s o n Facts , N o t Labe ls . fo r Ge n e ral Maritim e Associated Term inals m aintains that a fair reading of Doss’s com plaint shows that he does not bring a claim for general m aritim e negligen ce. Specifically, Associated Term inals points to Doss’s choice to divide his com plaint into two causes of action. The first cause of action, Associated Term inals asserts, is specifically a J ones Act negligen ce claim , and the second is for unseaworthiness. Doss’s failure to enum erate a third cause of action for general m aritim e negligen ce, according to Associated Term inals, doom s the purported claim . This argum ent m isunderstands Doss’s pleading obligation. “Federal pleading rules call for ‘a short and plain statem ent of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief’; they do not countenance dism issal of a com plaint for im perfect statem ent of the legal theory supporting the claim asserted.” Johnson v. City of Shelby , Miss., 135 S. Ct. 346, 346-47 (20 14) (quoting Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 8(a)(2)). Under Rule 8, the Court evaluates the sufficiency of the factual allegations, rather than the legal labels a plaintiff applies to them . See id. (reversing grant of sum m ary judgm ent where petitioners had “inform ed the city of the factual basis for their com plaint, [and] were required to do no m ore to stave off threshold dism issal for want of an adequate statem ent of their claim .”); Oneida Indian N ation of N .Y. v. Cty . of Oneida, 617 F.3d 114, 139 (2d Cir. 20 10 ) (“As this Court has previously indicated, the essence of a cause of action is found in the facts alleged 4 and proven by the plaintiff, not the particular legal theories articulated.”); Knapp v. City of Colum bus, 93 F. App’x 718, 720 (6th Cir. 20 0 4) (“The court’s duty is to look to the facts and grant the necessary relief as justice requires—not to dem and that certain citations or phrases are used.”). Accordingly, the Court m ust look to whether Doss has alleged facts supporting a claim for m aritim e negligence, and whether Associated Term inals has m et its burden to show that these facts are not subject to genuine dispute. B. As s o ciate d Te rm in als H as N o t Me t Its Bu rd e n to Sh o w Th a t Su m m ary Ju d gm e n t is W arran te d o n D o s s ’s Ge n e ra l Maritim e N e glige n ce Claim . To state a claim for m aritim e negligence, “the plaintiff m ust dem onstrate that there was a duty owed by the defendant to the plaintiff, breach of that duty, injury sustained by the plaintiff, and a causal connection between the defendant’s conduct and the plaintiff’s injury.” In re Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co. LLC, 624 F.3d 20 1, 211 (5th Cir. 20 10 ) (internal quotations and m odifications om itted). Doss alleges each of these elem ents in his com plaint. Specifically, Doss alleges: (1) that Associated Term inals owed him a duty11; (2) that Associated Term inals breached its duty12 ; (3) that Doss suffered an injury 13 ; and (4) that Associated Term inals’ breach of its duty caused Doss’s in juries. 14 11 R. Doc. 1 at 3 (assertin g the existence of “a legally im posed duty of reasonable care owed by the defen dants to the petitioner”). 12 Id. (e.g., asserting that defendants “fail[ed] to m aintain safe equipm ent and crane”). 13 Id. at 5 (alleging $ 1.5 m illion in dam ages). 14 Id. at 3 (“The accident and all resulting dam ages were caused by the unseaworthiness, fault and negligence of the M/ V K2 and/ or Dockside Linem an, Inc. and/ or Associated Term inals who were in charge of the navigation, operation, and/ or control of the M/ V K2 . . . .”). 5 As evidence supporting denial of Associated Term inal’s m otion for sum m ary judgem ent, Doss points to the expert report of David E. Cole. 15 Cole, a form er m arine safety specialist with the U.S. Coast Guard, opines that associated Term inal’s negligence in fulfilling its duties as owner of the MGMT contributed to Doss’s injury. 16 Cole writes: It is m y opinion that the owner of the MGMT [i.e., Associated Term inals], and Mr. Doss’ em ployer, did not live up to the proper standard of care, an d this contributed to Mr. Doss’ injury. This would have required proper access between the MGMT and the cargo barges, rem oval of the slippery hazard presented by wet grain. For exam ple, Mr. Doss did not try to board the em pty barge at the upriver end because of wash down being conducted at the sam e tim e. This clean ing could have been done prior to Mr. Doss being required to cross over. 17 Associated Term in als offers no evidence tending to contradict this account. Associated Term inals therefore cannot m eet its burden to show that sum m ary judgm ent on Doss’s general negligen ce claim is appropriate. IV. CON CLU SION For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Associated Term inals’ m otion. Sum m ary judgm ent is granted as to Doss’s J ones Act claim s for negligence and unseaworthiness, and his claim s for m aintenance and cure. Sum m ary judgm ent is denied as to Doss’s claim s for general m aritim e negligen ce. 29th New Orleans, Louisiana, this _ _ _ day of Novem ber, 20 16. ____________________________________ SARAH S. VANCE UNITED STATES DISTRICT J UDGE 15 R. Doc. 44-9. 16 Id. 17 Id. at 3. 6

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.