Loveall et al v. Nordic Underwater Services, Inc. et al, No. 2:2016cv00724 - Document 19 (E.D. La. 2016)
Court Description: ORDER granting 15 Motion to Dismiss Intervention and Third Party Complaint. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey. (jrc)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Loveall et al v. Nordic Underwater Services, Inc. et al Doc. 19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA DALE E. LOVEALL, ET AL. CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO: 16-724 NORDIC UNDERWATER SERVICES, INC., ET AL. SECTION: "A" (3) ORD ER AN D REAS ON S The following m otion is before the Court: Mo tio n to D is m is s In te rve n tio n a n d Th ird Party Co m p lain t ( Re c. D o c. 15) filed by The Am erican Longshore Mutual Association (“ALMA”). Intervenor MEL Underwriters opposes the m otion. The m otion, noticed for subm ission on August 10 , 20 16, is before the Court on the briefs without oral argum ent. For the reasons that follow, the m otion is GRANTED. I. BACKGROU N D Dale E. Loveall, J r. filed this lawsuit for injuries that he allegedly sustained working aboard the M/ V AMERICAN 12. Loveall claim s that he is a J ones Act seam an and he has filed suit under the J ones Act and general m aritim e law against his em ployers, Nordic Underwater Services and AMI Consulting Engineers. In the event that Loveall is not a J ones Act seam an, Loveall has pleaded in the alternative a claim for benefits under the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Com pensation Act (“LHWCA”). Nordic’s LHWCA carrier is ALMA. MEL Underwriters is Nordic’s m aritim e em ployer’s insurer. MEL Underwriters has voluntarily paid m aintenance and cure to Loveall even though it disputes whether Loveall is actually a J ones Act seam an. Page 1 of 6 Dockets.Justia.com Neither Loveall nor any defendant brought either of these insurers into this case. Instead, on J une 9, 20 16, counsel for Nordic, who also represents MEL Underwriters, attem pted to file into the record an Intervention and Third Party Com plaint on behalf of MEL Underwriters. (Rec. Doc. 10 ). The Clerk of Court struck that pleading because leave of court had not been requested or granted. The next day, MEL Underwriters was granted leave to Intervene and file its Third Party Com plaint against ALMA. 1 (Rec. Docs. 11, 12, & 13). MEL Underwriters asserted that the intervention was appropriate under Rule 24(a)(2) because MEL sought to recoup the m aintenance and cure funds that it paid to Loveall in the event it is determ ined that Loveall is not a J ones Act seam an. (Rec. Doc. 13). If Loveall is not a seam an after all, MEL Underwriters conten ds that ALMA, Nordic’s LHWCA carrier, should have been paying Loveall’s m edical expen ses and worker’s com p benefits all along, and therefore ALMA m ust reim burse MEL Underwriters. Thus, MEL Underwriters brought ALMA in as a third party defendant. ALMA now m oves to dism iss the intervention and third party dem and arguing inter alia that MEL Underwriters im properly intervened in this lawsuit and that the Court lacks subject m atter jurisdiction over MEL Underwriters’ claim against ALMA. II. D ISCU SSION The Court begins by assum ing for the sake of argum ent two legal points that the parties have m ired them selves in unnecessarily. First, the Court assum es that if it is determ ined that Loveall is not a J ones Act seam an then MEL Underwriters will have a 1 The m otion was not opposed by any of the existing parties given that MEL was not attem pting to assert a claim against any of them . Page 2 of 6 reim bursem ent claim against ALMA. Second, the Court will assum e that any such reim bursem ent claim against ALMA is not one subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of either the Office of Workers’ Com pensation Program s or the Louisiana Office of Workers’ Com pensation Adm inistration. In other words, if MEL Underwriters were to establish that a federal court has original jurisdiction over its reim bursem ent claim then there is no statutory bar to bringing the claim in a federal court. With these two issues out of the way, the Court turns its attention to the determ in ative question of whether the intervention itself was appropriate under Rule 24(a)(2). 2 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2), entitled Intervention of Right, states in relevant part: On tim ely m otion, the court m ust perm it anyone to intervene who: *** claim s an interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action, and is so situated that disposing of the action m ay as a practical m atter im pair or im pede the m ovant's ability to protect its interest, unless existing parties adequately represent that interest. Fed. R. Civ. P. 24. The parts of the intervention test pertinent to this case are 1) an interest relating to the action, 2) that would be im paired or im peded by the case, 3) that is not adequately represented by the existing parties. 3 In re Lease Oil Antitrust Litig., 570 F.3d 244, 247 (5th Cir. 20 0 9) (citing Sierra Club v. Espy , 18 F.3d 120 2, 120 4-0 5 (5 th Cir. 1994)). To 2 The propriety of the intervention is clearly the sem inal issue that drives the analysis because even if subject m atter jurisdiction exists, it cannot cure the procedural problem that arises when an intervention does not comport with Rule 24. See How se v. S/ V CAN ADA GOOSE I, 641 F.2d 317 (5 th Cir. 1981) (vacating a final judgm ent entered on a claim asserted in an intervention that did not com port with Rule 24 even though the court clearly had subject m atter jurisdiction). 3 No party has challenged the tim eliness of the intervention. Page 3 of 6 support intervention as of right, the m ovant m ust show that it has a “direct, substantial, legally protectable interest in the action, m eaning ‘that the interest be one which the substantive law recognizes as belonging to or being owned by the applicant.’” Id. (quoting Cajun Elect. Pow er Coop. v. Gulf States Utils., Inc., 940 F.2d 117, 119 (5 th Cir. 1991) (em phasis in original)). Moreover, an econom ic interest alone is not a legally sufficient interest for intervention under Rule 24(a)(2), and such intervention is im proper where the intervenor does not itself possess the only substantive legal right it seeks to assert in the action. In re Lease Oil, 570 F.3d at 251 (quoting N OPSI v. United Gas Pipe Line Co., 732 F. 2d 452, 466 (5 th Cir. 1984) (en banc)). The m ain dem and in this case—over which the Court has origin al jurisdiction grounded in adm iralty—is Loveall’s J ones Act claim against Nordic. Undisputedly, MEL Underwriters does not have a direct, substantial, legally protected interest in Loveall’s case. MEL Underwriters will have no rights to assert against any recovery that Loveall obtains on his J ones Act claim because success on the J ones Act claim im plies that MEL Underwriters was properly paying benefits all along, and therefore has no lien on the settlem ent proceeds. MEL Underwriters’ reliance on Chenevert v. Travelers Indem nity Co., 746 F.3d 58 1 (5th Cir. 20 14), is m isplaced because the intervenor in that case had a subrogation lien on the J ones Act settlem ent proceeds. That lien arose because the intervenor had paid LHWCA benefits to the plaintiff, and the paym ent of those ben efits was inconsistent with seam an status. The interven or therefore had a right to recoup from the plaintiff’s recovery the LHWCA ben efits that it had paid. The intervenor’s interest in the m ain dem and was therefore direct and substantial, and the sole m eans for the Page 4 of 6 intervenor to efficaciously execute its lien was to intervene in the J ones Act plaintiff’s case. MEL Underwriters is not sim ilarly situated to the intervenor in Chenevert because if Loveall prevails on his J ones Act claim then MEL Underwriters has no subrogation lien. Although MEL Underwriters m ay potentially benefit from an adverse ruling on seam an status, MEL Underwriters’ interest in the m ain dem and is indirect, solely econom ic in n ature, and com pletely tangential to the m ain dem and. This is born e out by the fact that MEL Underwriters insinuated itself into this case not to assert a claim against an y existing party but rather to pursue a new independent claim against a nonparty. MEL Underwriters has no right to litigate seam an status in Loveall’s case beyond what its own insured — who is represented by the sam e attorney and who m ore than adequately can protect its interests — is already doing. The intervention in this case serves only to add new issues to an existing case, and the issues to be added n eed not be litigated as part of Loveall’s case. And crucially, to the extent that MEL Underwriters would have a reim bursem ent claim , that claim would only arise when and if Loveall is determ ined not to be a seam an. MEL Underwriters cannot interven e in this case to prosecute a claim that has not even accrued and m ay never accrue. Sim ply, MEL Underwriters is an interloper in this case and the intervention is not proper. Accordingly, and for the foregoing reason s; IT IS ORD ERED that the Mo tio n to D is m is s In te rve n tio n a n d Th ird Pa rty Co m p lain t ( Re c. D o c. 15) filed by The Am erican Longshore Mutual Association is GRAN TED . The Intervention and Third Party Com plaint filed by MEL Underwriters is D ISMISSED . MEL Underwriters is term in ated as a party to this case Page 5 of 6 and all claim s against ALMA are dism issed. August 19, 20 16 J AY C. ZAINEY UNITED STATES DISTRICT J UDGE Page 6 of 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.
