Cardoso-Gonzalez v. Anadarko Petroleum Corporation et al, No. 2:2016cv16585 - Document 41 (E.D. La. 2017)
Court Description: ORDER AND REASONS granting 32 Motion for Summary Judgment. Defendant Gulf South Services, Inc. is entitled to judgment in its favor. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Cardoso-Gonzalez v. Anadarko Petroleum Corporation et al Doc. 41 U N ITED S TATES D ISTRICT COU RT EASTERN D ISTRICT OF LOU ISIAN A N OEL CARD OSO-GON ZALEZ, Plain tiff CIVIL ACTION VERSU S N O. 16 -16 58 5 AN AD ARKO PETROLEU M CORPORATION , ET AL., D e fe n d an ts SECTION : “E” ( 1) ORD ER AN D REAS ON S Before the Court is Defendant Gulf South Services, Inc.’s Motion for Sum m ary J udgm ent. 1 The m otion is unopposed by Plaintiff Noel Cardoso-Gonzales. Accordingly, the Court considers the Defendant’s statem ent of uncontested facts to be adm itted pursuant to Local Rule 56.2. Although the m otion for sum m ary judgm ent is unopposed, sum m ary judgm ent is not autom atic, and the Court m ust determ ine whether the Defendant has shown an entitlem ent to judgm ent as a m atter of law. 2 BACKGROU N D Plaintiff Noel Cardoso-Gonzales alleges that on August 13, 20 16, he was working aboard the LUCIUS spar when an unsecured cable tray fell from overhead, striking him between the shoulder and neck and causing severe and disabling injuries. 3 Plaintiff was em ployed at the tim e by Om ni Energy Services Corp., an independent contractor providing blasting an d painting services aboard the LUCIUS. 4 On Novem ber 23, 20 16, Plaintiff filed suit against (1) Anadarko Petroleum Corporation, the owner and/ or 1 R. Doc. 32. See, e.g., Johnson v. Pettiford, 442 F.3d 917, 918 (5th Cir. 20 0 6). F ED. R. CIV. P. 56(a). 3 R. Doc. 6 at 2-4. A cable tray is a m etal tray through which various cables run . See R. Doc. 32-2 at 2 (Deposition of Louis De La Sierra). 4 R. Doc. 32-4 at 3 (Deposition of Brandon Mouton). 2 1 Dockets.Justia.com operator of the LUCIUS; (2) W-Industries of Louisiana, LLC, which provided electrical services on the LUCIUS, including the installation of cable trays; 5 (3) Dolphin Services, L.L.C., which provided construction services on the LUCIUS, including the installation of braces and supports; 6 (4) Safezone Safety System s, LLC; and (5) Gulf South Services, Inc. (“GSSI”), the spar’s scaffolding supplier. 7 Plaintiff asserts a n egligence claim against GSSI. 8 GSSI m oves for sum m ary judgm ent on the grounds that Plaintiff has failed to produce eviden ce sufficient to state a negligen ce claim against GSSI under Louisiana law. 9 The m otion is unopposed. LEGAL STAN D ARD Sum m ary judgm ent is appropriate only “if the m ovant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any m aterial fact and the m ovant is entitled to judgm ent as a m atter of law.”10 “An issue is m aterial if its resolution could affect the outcom e of the action.”11 When assessing whether a m aterial factual dispute exists, the Court considers “all of the eviden ce in the record but refrains from m aking credibility determ inations or weighing the evidence.”12 All reasonable inferences are drawn in favor of the nonm oving party. 13 There is no genuine issue of m aterial fact if, even viewing the evidence in the light m ost 5 R. Doc. 32-6 at 2 (Deposition of Sullivan J . Fortner). Id. 7 R. Doc. 32-4 at 3 (Deposition of Brandon Mouton). 8 R. Doc. 6 at 3. 9 R. Doc. 32-1 at 4. 10 F ED . R. CIV. P. 56; see also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322– 23 (1986). 11 DIRECTV Inc. v. Robson, 420 F.3d 532, 536 (5th Cir. 20 0 5). 12 Delta & Pine Land Co. v. N ationw ide Agribusiness Ins. Co., 530 F.3d 395, 398 (5th Cir. 20 0 8); see also Reeves v . Sanderson Plum bing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 150 – 51 (20 0 0 ). 13 Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 10 69, 10 75 (5th Cir. 1994). 6 2 favorable to the nonm oving party, no reasonable trier of fact could find for the nonm oving party, thus entitling the m oving party to judgm ent as a m atter of law. 14 If the dispositive issue is on e on which the m oving party will bear the burden of persuasion at trial, the m oving party “m ust com e forward with evidence which would ‘entitle it to a directed verdict if the evidence went uncontroverted at trial.’”15 If the m oving party fails to carry this burden, the m otion m ust be denied. If the m oving party successfully carries this burden, the burden of production then shifts to the nonm oving party to direct the Court’s attention to som ething in the pleadings or other evidence in the record setting forth specific facts sufficient to establish that a genuine issue of m aterial fact does indeed exist. 16 If the dispositive issue is one on which the nonm oving party will bear the burden of persuasion at trial, the m oving party m ay satisfy its burden of production by either (1) subm itting affirm ative eviden ce that negates an essential elem ent of the nonm ovant’s claim , or (2) dem onstrating there is no evidence in the record to establish an essential elem ent of the nonm ovant’s claim . 17 When proceeding under the first option, if the nonm oving party cannot m uster sufficient eviden ce to dispute the m ovant’s contention that there are no disputed facts, a trial would be useless, and the m oving party is entitled 14 Sm ith v. Am edisy s, Inc., 298 F.3d 434, 440 (5th Cir. 20 0 2). Int’l Shortstop, Inc. v. Rally ’s, Inc., 939 F.2d 1257, 1263– 64 (5th Cir. 1991) (quoting Golden Rule Ins. Co. v. Lease, 755 F. Supp. 948, 951 (D. Colo. 1991)). 16 Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322– 24. 17 Id. at 331– 32 (Brennan, J ., dissentin g); see also St. Am ant v. Benoit, 8 0 6 F.2d 1294, 1297 (5th Cir. 1987) (citing J ustice Brennan’s statem ent of the sum m ary judgm ent standard in Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322– 24 (1986), and requirin g the m ovants to subm it affirm ative evidence to negate an essential elem ent of the nonm ovant’s claim or, alternatively, dem onstrate the nonm ovant’s evidence is insufficient to establish an essential elem ent); Fano v. O’N eill, 80 6 F.2d 1262, 1266 (citing J ustice Bren nan’s dissent in Celotex, and requiring the m ovant to m ake an affirm ative presentation to n egate the non m ovant’s claim s on sum m ary judgm ent); 10 A CHARLES ALAN W RIGHT, ARTHUR R. M ILLER & M ARY KAY KANE , F EDERAL P RACTICE AND P ROCEDURE §2727.1 (20 16) (“Although the Court issued a five-to-four decision , the m ajority and dissent both agreed as to how the sum m ary-judgm ent burden of proof operates; they disagreed as to how the standard was applied to the facts of the case.” (internal citations om itted)). 15 3 to sum m ary judgm ent as a m atter of law. 18 When, however, the m ovant is proceeding under the second option and is seeking sum m ary judgm ent on the ground that the nonm ovant has no evidence to establish an essential elem ent of the claim , the nonm oving party m ay defeat a m otion for sum m ary judgm ent by “calling the Court’s attention to supporting eviden ce already in the record that was overlooked or ignored by the m oving party.”19 Under either scenario, the burden then shifts back to the m ovant to dem onstrate the inadequacy of the evidence relied upon by the nonm ovant. 20 If the m ovant m eets this burden, “the burden of production shifts [back again] to the nonm oving party, who m ust either (1) rehabilitate the evidence attacked in the m oving party’s papers, (2) produce additional eviden ce showing the existence of a genuin e issue for trial as provided in Rule 56(e), or (3) subm it an affidavit explaining why further discovery is necessary as provided in Rule 56(f).”21 “Sum mary judgm ent should be granted if the nonm oving party fails to respond in one or m ore of these ways, or if, after the nonm oving party responds, the court determ ines that the m oving party has m et its ultim ate burden of persuading the court that there is no genuine issue of m aterial fact for trial.”22 “[U]nsubstantiated assertions are not com petent sum m ary judgm ent evidence. The party opposing sum m ary judgm ent is required to identify specific evidence in the record an d to articulate the precise m anner in which that evidence supports the claim . 18 First N ational Bank of Arizona v. Cities Service Co., 391 U.S. 253, 28 8 – 89 (198 0 ); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby , Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249– 50 (1986). 19 Celotex, 477 U.S. at 332– 33. 20 Id. 21 Celotex, 477 U.S. at 332– 33, 333 n.3. 22 Id.; see also First N ational Bank of Arizona, 391 U.S at 289. 4 ‘Rule 56 does not im pose upon the district court a duty to sift through the record in search of evidence to support a party’s opposition to sum m ary judgm ent.’”23 AN ALYSIS Plaintiffs assert a negligence claim against GSSI. To prove negligence under Louisiana law, a plaintiff m ust show (1) the defendant had a duty to conform its conduct to a specific standard of care; (2) the defendant failed to conform its conduct to the standard of care; (3) the defendant’s substandard conduct was a cause in fact of the plaintiff’s injuries; (4) the defendant’s substandard conduct was a legal cause of the injuries; and (5) actual dam ages. 24 The threshold question is whether the defendant owed a duty, which is a question of law. 25 In Louisian a, an in dependent contractor does not owe a duty to protect another independent contractor’s em ployee “where it does not em ploy, share a contract, or actually supervise the plaintiff.”26 The Court finds that there is no genuine dispute of m aterial fact regarding the sum m ary judgm ent evidence put forth by GSSI, and that therefore GSSI is entitled to judgm ent as a m atter of law. First, there is no dispute that GSSI owed no duty to Plaintiff over and above the duty it owed to the general public. Mr. Cardoso-Gonzales was em ployed by Om n i, and GSSI neither supervised Mr. Cardoso-Gonzales nor shared a contract with him . 27 Second, there is no evidence to suggest that GSSI breached its ordinary duty of care. There is no evidence that any equipm ent owned by GSSI was involved in the 23 Ragas v. Tenn . Gas Pipeline Co., 136 F.3d 455, 458 (5th Cir. 1998) (citin g Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324; Forsy th v. Barr, 19 F.3d 1527, 1537 (5th Cir. 1994) an d quoting Skotak v. Tenneco Resins, Inc., 953 F.2d 90 9, 915– 16 & n .7 (5th Cir. 1992)). 24 Brew er v. J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc. 20 0 9-140 8 (La. 3/ 16/ 10 ), 35 So. 3d 230 , 240 . 25 Id. 26 Fornah v. Tetra Applied Technologies, LLC, 20 17 WL 4791176 *5 (E.D. La. October 23, 20 17). 27 R. Doc. 32-5 at 2 (Deposition of Noel Cardoso-Gonzales). 5 accident, and no evidence that anyone em ployed by GSSI interacted in any way with the unsecured tray. 28 All parties agree that there is no reason to believe that GSSI or its equipm ent played any role in the accident. 29 In the absence of any opposition filed by the Plaintiffs, there is no dispute regarding GSSI’s statem ents of uncontested m aterial fact. 30 The Court finds that GSSI is entitled to judgm ent as a m atter of law. CON CLU SION For the foregoing reasons; IT IS ORD ERED that GSSI’s m otion for sum m ary judgm ent is GRAN TED . Defendant Gulf South Services, In c. is entitled to judgm ent in its favor. N e w Orle a n s , Lo u is ian a, th is 9 th d ay o f N o ve m be r, 2 0 17. ______________________ _________ SU SIE MORGAN U N ITED S TATES D ISTRICT J U D GE 28 Id. at 4. See R. Doc. 32-4 at 7 (Deposition of Brandon Mouton); R. Doc. 32-8 at 3 (Deposition of Anthony Rodriguez); R. Doc. 32-7 at 3 (Deposition of Thad H opkins); R. Doc. 32-9 at 2 (Deposition of Douglas Lam ey, J r.). 30 R. Doc. 32-10 . 29 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.
