Lee v. Offshore Logistical and Transports L.L.C., No. 2:2015cv02528 - Document 12 (E.D. La. 2015)
Court Description: ORDER AND REASONS granting 6 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. Plaintiffs claims for punitive damages for negligence and unseaworthiness under the Jones Act and general maritime law are hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. This Order does not impact Plaintiffs claim for punitive damages for any alleged arbitrary and unreasonable failure of Defendant to pay maintenance and cure benefits. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Lee v. Offshore Logistical and Transports L.L.C. Doc. 12 U N ITED S TATES D ISTRICT COU RT EASTERN D ISTRICT OF LOU ISIAN A ELW OOD LEE, Pla in tiff CIVIL ACTION VERSU S N O. 15 -2 5 2 8 OFFSH ORE LOGISTICAL AN D TRAN SPORTS L.L.C., D e fe n d an t SECTION : “E” ( 2 ) ORD ER AN D REAS ON S Before the Court is Defendant’s m otion to dism iss Plaintiff’s punitive dam ages claim s relating to negligence and unseaworthiness pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 1 BACKGROU N D This is a m aritim e personal injury case. Plaintiff Elwood Lee (“Plaintiff”) filed a com plaint on J uly 10 , 20 15, pursuant to the J ones Act 2 and the gen eral m aritim e law. 3 Plaintiff alleges that, while aboard the M/ V Balty on or about J uly 20 , 20 14, Plaintiff “experienced an accident” resulting in “serious painful injuries” to his knee and other parts of his body. 4 The com plaint asserts that the M/ V Balty was owned, operated, and/ or controlled by Defendant Offshore Logistical and Transports L.L.C. (“Defendant”) an d that Plaintiff was an em ployee of Defendant at the tim e of the accident. 5 Plaintiff brings claim s for negligence and unseaworthiness and “specifically alleges a claim for punitive dam ages under the general m aritim e law.”6 1 R. Doc. 6. 46 U.S.C. § 30 10 4. 3 R. Doc. 1. 4 Id. at ¶¶ III– V. 5 Id. 6 R. Doc. 1 at ¶ XII. 2 1 Dockets.Justia.com Defendant filed a m otion to dism iss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) on Septem ber 25, 20 15, 7 arguing that Plaintiff cannot recover punitive dam ages under the J ones Act or the general m aritim e law. 8 Plaintiff filed a respon se to the m otion to dism iss on October 12, 20 15, requesting that, “should the Court agree to dism iss claim s for punitive dam ages for unseaworthiness, . . . that particular claim be dism issed without prejudice.”9 Defendant filed a surreply on Novem ber 23, 20 15. 10 STAN D ARD OF LAW Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) provides for the dism issal of a claim if the claim ant fails to set forth factual allegations in support of the claim that would entitle the claim ant to relief. 11 Those “‘[f]actual allegations m ust be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.’”12 “To survive a m otion to dism iss, a com plaint m ust contain sufficient factual m atter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’”13 “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the m isconduct alleged.”14 In considering a m otion to dism iss, the Court m ust accept all wellpleaded facts as true and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-m oving party. 15 “[O]nly a com plaint that states a plausible claim for relief survives a m otion to dism iss.”16 7 R. Doc. 6. See R. Doc. 6-1 at 3. The m otion to dism iss “does not seek at this tim e to dism iss” the claim for punitive dam ages for any alleged arbitrary or unreasonable failure of Defendant to pay m aintenance and cure benefits. See id. 9 R. Doc. 7. 10 R. Doc. 11. 11 See Bell Atl. Corp. v . Tw om bly , 550 U.S. 544, 555 (20 0 7); see also Cuvillier v. Tay lor, 50 3 F.3d 397, 40 1 (5th Cir. 20 0 7). 12 Gonzalez v. Kay , 577 F.3d 60 0 , 60 3 (5th Cir. 20 0 9) (quoting Tw om bly , 550 U.S. at 555). 13 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (20 0 9) (quotin g Tw om bly , 550 U.S. at 570 ). 14 Id. 15 Lorm and v. U.S. Un w ired, Inc., 565 F.3d 228, 232 (5th Cir. 20 0 9). 16 Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. 8 2 D ISCU SSION Defendant argues in its m otion to dism iss that the Fifth Circuit’s decision in McBride v. Estis W ell Service, Inc. 17 is dispositive of this issue. In McBride, the Fifth Circuit, sitting en banc, cited to and relied on Miles v. Apex Marine Corp., 18 “which holds that the J ones Act lim its a seam an’s recovery to pecuniary losses where liability is predicated on the J ones Act or unseaworthiness.”19 The Fifth Circuit in McBride noted that “[b]ecause punitive dam ages are non-pecuniary losses,” they are not recoverable under the J ones Act or the general m aritim e law. 20 Plaintiff concedes in its response that the Fifth Circuit “has stated that punitive dam ages are not available under the general m aritim e law in its latest decision in McBride.”21 Plaintiff requests that the claim s for punitive dam ages be dism issed without prejudice, “allowing him to refile such claim s if McBride is reversed by the Suprem e Court at a later date an d while this case is pending.”22 The Suprem e Court, however, denied the petition for writ of certiorari in McBride on May 18, 20 15. 23 In Collins v. A.B.C. Marine Tow ing, L.L.C., 24 another Section of this Court concluded that punitive dam ages are available under general m aritim e law against a nonem ployer third party. That court declined to follow the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Scarborough v. Clem co Industries, which held, in line with Miles and McBride, that a seam an m ay not recover punitive dam ages against either his em ployer or a nonem ployer. 25 The court in Collins noted that, since the Scarborough decision in 20 0 4, the 17 768 F.3d 382 (5th Cir. 20 14) (en banc). 498 U.S. 19 (1990 ). 19 Id. at 384, 38 8. 20 Id. 21 R. Doc. 7 at 2. 22 Id. 23 See McBride v. Estis W ell Serv., L.L.C., 135 S. Ct. 2310 (20 15). 24 No. 14-190 0 , 20 15 WL 5254710 (E.D. La. Sept. 9, 20 15). 25 Scarborough v. Clem co In dus., 391 F.3d 660 , 668 (5th Cir. 20 0 4). 18 3 Suprem e Court has held—in Atlantic Sounding Co. v. Tow nsend—that a seam an can recover punitive dam ages for an em ployer’s arbitrary withholding of m aintenance and cure. 26 Thus, the Collins court concluded that the Suprem e Court effectively “call[ed] into question the legal reasoning and conclusions espoused in Scarborough” and that, consequently, Scarborough had been im plicitly overruled. 27 As a result, the Collins court found, in the context of a seam an’s claim s against a non-em ployer third party where the J ones Act is not im plicated, the seam an can recover punitive dam ages. 28 However, as even Collins recognizes, the Tow nsend decision is specific to the m aintenance-and-cure context and does not address whether punitive dam ages are available for claim s of unseaworthiness. 29 In fact, the Tow nsend Court took pains to distinguish m aintenance and cure, for which it concluded punitive dam ages are available, from a seam an’s rem edies for negligence and unseaworthiness, for which punitive dam ages are gen erally not available under Miles, Scarborough, and McBride. 30 As other courts in this district have recognized, although Tow nsend m ay give hope to seam en wishing to obtain punitive dam ages for unseaworthiness claim s against their em ployers and non -em ployers, “this Court cannot assum e the Fifth Circuit has changed its position on person al injury claim s falling outside the scope of Tow nsend.”31 Further, the Court notes that the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Scarborough, which held that a seam an m ay not 26 See Atlantic Sounding Co. v. Tow nsend, 557 U.S. 40 4, 424– 25 (20 0 9); Collins, 20 15 WL 5254710 , at *3– 4. 27 Collins, 20 15 WL 5254710 , at *5. 28 Id. at *5– 6. 29 Id. at *3. See also Tow nsen d, 557 U.S. at 419– 21. 30 Tow nsend, 557 U.S. at 40 7. 31 Bloodsaw v. Diam ond Offshore Mgm t. Co., No. 10 -4163, 20 13 WL 533920 7, at *1 (E.D. La. Aug. 19, 20 13). See also In re International Marine, No. 12-358 , 20 13 WL 3293677, at *9 (E.D. La. J une 28 , 20 13); O’Quain v. Shell Offshore, Inc., No. 2:12-cv-0 1693, 20 13 WL 149467, at *4 (E.D. La. J an. 14, 20 13); In re Oil Spill by the Oil Rig “Deepw ater Horizon” in the Gulf of Mexico, on April 20 , 20 10 , MDL No. 2179, 20 11 WL 4575696, at *11 (E.D. La. Sept. 30 , 20 11); W ilson v. N oble Drilling Corp., No. 0 8-4940 , 20 0 9 WL 9139586, at *2– 3 (E.D. La. Aug. 12, 20 0 9). 4 recover punitive dam ages against either his em ployer or a non-em ployer, is bin ding on this Court and has never been overruled. As a result, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s punitive dam ages claim s relating to negligence and unseaworthiness are not plausible claim s for relief in light of binding Fifth Circuit precedent. CON CLU SION IT IS ORD ERED that Defendant’s m otion to dism iss is GRAN TED . Plaintiff’s claim s for punitive dam ages for negligen ce and unseaworthiness under the J ones Act and general m aritim e law are hereby D ISMISSED W ITH PREJ U D ICE. This Order does not im pact Plaintiff’s claim for punitive dam ages for any alleged arbitrary an d unreasonable failure of Defendant to pay m aintenance and cure benefits. 32 N e w Orle a n s , Lo u is ian a, th is 2 4 th d ay o f N o ve m be r, 2 0 15 . _____________ ________ _________ SU SIE MORGAN U N ITED S TATES D ISTRICT J U D GE 32 See supra note 8. 5
]]>
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.
