Costanza et al v. Accutrans, Inc., No. 2:2017cv05706 - Document 25 (E.D. La. 2017)
Court Description: ORDER AND REASONS granting 23 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Costanza et al v. Accutrans, Inc. Doc. 25 U N ITED S TATES D ISTRICT COU RT EASTERN D ISTRICT OF LOU ISIAN A CALVIN M. COSTAN ZA, ET AL., Plain tiffs CIVIL ACTION VERSU S N O. 17-570 6 ACCU TRAN S, IN C., D e fe n d an t SECTION : “E” ( 5) ORD ER AN D REAS ON S Before the Court is Defendant Accutrans, Inc.’s (“Accutrans”) motion for summary judgment. 1 The motion is opposed. 2 For the following reasons, the Court grants the motion. BACKGROU N D Accutrans provides stevedoring services to various com panies operating in the Gulf of Mexico. 3 Plaintiff Calvin Costanza worked as a tankerm an for Accutrans from April 20 12 until J anuary 20 16. 4 His duties included “loading and/ or unloading cargo from barges, m ooring the barges to the dock, m onitoring the drafts of the barges to m ake sure they stayed afloat, and pum ping out the ballast tanks if the barges took on water during the loading and/ or unloading process.”5 When Accutrans assigned Mr. Costanza to a particular barge, he was in charge and given total control over it. For the m ost part, these barges were “special purpose vessels designed to transport hazardous cargo,” and Mr. Costanza was “regularly being exposed to toxic substances.”6 In J anuary 20 15, Mr. Costanza was diagnosed with cancer. 7 Plaintiffs allege Mr. Costanza’s cancer is a direct 1 R. Doc. 23. R. Doc. 24. 3 R. Doc. 12-1 at 1. 4 R. Doc. 1-1 at ¶ 3; R. Doc. 16-6; R. Doc. 12-1. 5 R. Doc. 16 at 1– 2. 6 R. Doc. 16 at 12– 13. 7 R. Doc. 1-1 at ¶ 6. 2 1 Dockets.Justia.com result of his “expos[ure] to toxic and carcinogenic substances” “while in the course and scope of his em ploym ent.”8 Plaintiffs filed the instant m atter in the 24th J udicial District Court for the Parish of J efferson, State of Louisiana on May 8 , 20 17 pursuant to the J ones Act, 46 U.S.C. § 68 8 . 9 In their state court petition, Plaintiffs alleged Mr. Costanza “was em ployed as a seam an within the m eaning of the J ones Act and the General Maritim e Law.”10 On J une 9, 20 17, Accutrans rem oved the action to this Court, 11 contending Plaintiffs m ay not seek relief under the J ones Act, as Mr. Costanza’s seam an status was fraudulently pleaded. 12 Plaintiffs then filed a m otion to rem and the case to state court. 13 On October 24, 20 17, the Court denied Plaintiffs’ m otion, finding that “‘there is no possibility that Plaintiffs would be able to establish a cause of action’ under the J ones Act.”14 On Novem ber 9, 20 17, Accutrans filed the instant m otion for sum m ary judgm ent, contendin g the Longshore an d Harbor Workers’ Com pensation Act (“LHWCA”), the exclusive rem edy in this case, bars Plaintiffs’ J ones Act claim s. LAW & AN ALYSIS Having previously determ ined Mr. Costanza was not a J ones Act seam an when he incurred his injuries, the Court finds Plaintiffs’ claim s are exclusively governed by the LHWCA. 15 The LHWCA reads in pertin ent part, 8 Id. at ¶ 5, 7. R. Doc. 1-1. 10 Id. at ¶ 4. 11 R. Doc. 1. 12 R. Doc. 12. 13 R. Doc. 8. 14 R. Doc. 22 at 10 . 15 33 U.S.C. § 90 3(a); see Sw anson v. Marra Brothers, Inc., 328 U.S. 1, 6– 7 (1946) (acknowledging that Congress had expressed its intention to “con fin e the benefits of the J ones Act to the m em bers of the crew of a vessel plying in navigable waters and to substitute for the right of recovery recognized by the Haverty case only such rights to com pensation as are given by [the LHWCA]” and that Congress “explicitly den[ied] 9 2 The liability of an em ployer prescribed in section 4 [33 U.S.C. § 90 4] shall be exclusive and in place of all other liability of such em ployer to the em ployee, his legal representative, husband or wife, parents, dependents, next of kin, and anyone otherwise entitled to recover dam ages from such em ployer at law or in adm iralty on account of such injury or death, except that if an em ployer fails to secure paym ent of com pensation as required by this Act. 16 Thus, because Mr. Costanza is a longshorem an, not a J ones Act seam an, Plaintiffs are barred from seeking relief under the J ones Act. 17 Because Plaintiffs filed their claim s against Accutrans pursuant only to the J ones Act, Accutrans is entitled to sum m ary judgm ent on these claim s. Accordingly; IT IS H EREBY ORD ERED that Accutrans’ m otion for sum m ary judgm ent is hereby GRAN TED . N e w Orle a n s , Lo u is ian a, th is 5th d ay o f D e ce m be r, 2 0 17. _____________________ _______ SU SIE MORGAN U N ITED S TATES D ISTRICT J U D GE a right of recovery under the J ones Act to m aritim e workers not m em bers of a crew who are injured on board a vessel”); see also South Chicago Coal & Dock Co. v. Bassett, 30 9 U.S. 251, 257 (1940 ). 16 33 U.S.C. § 90 5(a). 17 Chandris, Inc. v. Latsis, 515 U.S. 347 (1995); McDerm ott Int’l, Inc. v. W ilander, 498 U.S. 337 (1991). 3
]]>
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.
