Menard v. Grand Isle Shipyard, Inc. et al, No. 2:2016cv00498 - Document 66 (E.D. La. 2017)
Court Description: ORDER AND REASONS denying 65 Motion for Entry of Judgment under Rule 54(b). Signed by Judge Sarah S. Vance on 4/21/2017. (cg)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Menard v. Grand Isle Shipyard, Inc. et al Doc. 66 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA COREY MENARD CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO. 16-498 LLOG EXPLORATION COMPANY, LLC, ET AL. SECTION “R” (3) ORD ER AN D REASON S Defendants LLOG Exploration Com pany, LLC; LLOG Exploration Offshore, LLC; and LLOG Exploration & Production Com pany, LLC (collectively, “the LLOG defendants”) m ove for entry of final judgm ent pursuant to rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 1 For the following reasons, the m otion is denied. I. BACKGROU N D Plaintiff Corey Menard was injured when he went via a personnel basket transfer from the vessel M/ V ARABIAN to LLOG’s Delta House Floating Production System . 2 The Delta House is a sem i-subm ersible oil- 1 R. Doc. 65. R. Doc. 62 at 1-2. For a m ore thorough review of the facts and history of this case, see id. at 1-3. 2 Dockets.Justia.com exploration platform in the Mississippi Canyon. 3 On J anuary 20 , 20 16, Menard sued Grand Isle Shipyard, Gibson Applied Technology, and the LLOG defendants, alleging that their negligence caused his injuries. 4 Plaintiff am ended his com plaint on J une 28, 20 16, adding Adriatic Marine, LLC, the owner and operator of the M/ V ARABIAN, and Wood Group Production Services, Inc., the entity responsible for operations on the Delta House, as defendants. 5 On April 10 , 20 17, the Court granted the LLOG defendants’ m otion for sum m ary judgm ent on all of Menard’s claim s against them . 6 In doing so, the Court found that there was no evidence of any negligence directly attributable to the LLOG defendants, and as a m atter of law the LLOG defendants were not liable for any negligent acts allegedly taken by Wood Group or Adriatic Marine. 7 Pursuant to Rule 54(b), the LLOG defendants now m ove for final judgm ent as to Menard’s claim s against them . The m otion is unopposed. 3 4 5 6 7 Id. R. Doc. 1 at 5-7 ¶¶ 14-16. R. Doc. 26 at 3-4. R. Doc. 62. Id. at 11-15. 2 II. D ISCU SSION Rule 54(b) provides, in pertinent part: When m ore than one claim for relief is presented in an action, whether as a claim , counterclaim , cross-claim , or third-party claim , or when m ultiple parties are involved, the court m ay direct the entry of a final judgm ent as to one or m ore but fewer than all of the claim s or parties only upon an express determ ination that there is no just reason for delay and upon an express direction for the entry of judgm ent. Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). The Fifth Circuit has noted that “[o]ne of the primary policies behind requiring a justification for Rule 54(b) certification is to avoid piecem eal appeals.” PYCA Indus., Inc. v. Harrison Cty W aste Mgm t., 81 F.3d 1412, 1421 (5th Cir. 1996). It explained that Rule 54(b) judgments are not favored and should be awarded only when necessary to avoid injustice: “A district court should grant certification [in a Rule 54(b) case] only when there exists some danger of hardship or injustice through delay which would be alleviated by imm ediate appeal; it should not be entered routinely as a courtesy to counsel.” Id. (citing Ansam Assocs., Inc. v. Cola Petroleum , Ltd., 760 F.2d 442, 445 (2d Cir. 1985)). The threshold inquiry for the Court is whether “there is no just reason for delay,” a determination that is within the sound discretion of the district court. See Ackerm an v. FDIC, 973 F.2d 1221, 1224 (5th Cir. 1992). In m aking this determ ination, the district court has a duty to weigh “the inconvenience 3 and costs of piecem eal review on the one hand and the danger of denying justice by delay on the other.” Road Sprinkler Fitters Local Union v. Continental Sprinkler Co., 967 F.2d 145, 148 (5th Cir. 1992) (quoting Dickinson v. Petroleum Conversion Corp., 338 U.S. 50 7, 511 (1950 )). A m ajor factor the district court should consider is whether the appellate court “‘would have to decide the sam e issues m ore than once even if there were subsequent appeals.’” H & W Indus., Inc. v. Form osa Plastics Corp., USA, 860 F.2d 172, 175 (5th Cir. 1988) (quoting Curtiss-W right Corp. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 446 U.S. 1, 8 (1980 )). After weighing the appropriate factors, the Court finds that certification is inappropriate in this case. The LLOG defendants fail to convince the Court that “there exists som e danger of hardship or injustice through delay which would be alleviated by im mediate appeal.” PYCA Indus., 81 F.3d at 1421 (holding that the district court abused its discretion by certifying an appeal without a finding of hardship). The LLOG defendants argue that there m ay be a significant delay in the ultim ate resolution of this m atter because plaintiff m ay need surgery, in which case he will m ove for a continuance of the trial. 8 This delay, according to the LLOG defendants, will cause them to incur “unnecessary delay and expense to m onitor the 8 R. Doc. 65-1 at 5. 4 continuing litigation.”9 This “hardship” is present in every case in which claim s are dism issed against som e defendants but not others, and does not indicate that this is the sort of “infrequent hard case” that Rule 54(b) was designed to address. See Jasm in v. Dum as, 726 F.2d 242, 244 (5th Cir. 1984); Tow v. Bulm ahn, No. 15-3141, 20 16 WL 3554720 , at *2 (E.D. La. J une 30 , 20 16). Further, that this m otion is unopposed does not alter the Court’s conclusion. The Fifth Circuit requires a searching inquiry into the grounds for 54(b) m otions and has dism issed appeals when a district court abuses its discretion by summ arily certifying a claim . See, e.g., PYCA Indus., 81 F.3d at 1421; see also Peace Lake Tow ers, Inc. v. Indian Harbor Ins. Co., No. 0 64522, 20 0 7 WL 11660 58, at *1-2 (E.D. La. Apr. 18, 20 0 7) (denying unopposed Rule 54(b) m otion). 9 Id. at 6. 5 III. CON CLU SION For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES the m otion for entry of final judgm ent pursuant to Rule 54(b). 21st New Orleans, Louisiana, this _ _ _ _ _ day of April, 20 17. _____________________ SARAH S. VANCE UNITED STATES DISTRICT J UDGE 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.
