Lewis v. Marquette Transportation Company, LLC, et al, No. 2:2017cv10917 - Document 80 (E.D. La. 2019)
Court Description: ORDER AND REASONS - IT IS ORDERED that Marquette's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Rec. Doc. 74 ) seeking dismissal of Lewis' claims for attorney's fees and punitive damages associated with the alleged arbitrary and capricious failure to provide maintenance and cure is GRANTED as unopposed, and those claims are DISMISSED with prejudice. Signed by Judge Barry W Ashe on 3/29/2019. (sa)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Lewis v. Marquette Transportation Company, LLC, et al Doc. 80 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA JOSHUA T. LEWIS CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO. 17-10917 MARQUETTE TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, LLC, ET AL. SECTION: M (5) ORDER & REASONS On February 21, 2019, defendant Marquette Transportation Company Gulf-Inland, LLC (“Marquette”) filed a motion for partial summary judgment seeking dismissal of plaintiff’s claims for attorney’s fees and punitive damages associated with the alleged arbitrary and capricious failure to provide maintenance and cure.1 The motion was set for submission on March 14, 2019.2 Local Rule 7.5 of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana requires that a memorandum in opposition to a motion must be filed no later than eight days before the noticed submission date. Plaintiff Joshua T. Lewis (“Lewis”), who is represented by counsel, has not filed a memorandum in opposition to the aforementioned motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, because the motion for summary judgment is unopposed, and it appearing to the Court that the motion has merit,3 IT IS ORDERED that Marquette’s motion for summary partial judgment seeking dismissal of Lewis’ claims for attorney’s fees and punitive damages associated with the alleged arbitrary and capricious failure to provide maintenance and cure (R. Doc. 74) is GRANTED as unopposed, and those claims are DISMISSED with prejudice. 1 R. Doc. 74. R. Doc. 74-9. 3 Marquette presents evidence that it paid all maintenance and cure due until Lewis’ treating physician, Dr. Timothy Finney, opined that Lewis had reached maximum medical improvement. R. Docs. 74-4 to 74-6. Therefore, Marquette could not have arbitrarily and capriciously failed to pay maintenance and cure. 2 Dockets.Justia.com New Orleans, Louisiana, this 29th day of March, 2019. ________________________________ BARRY W. ASHE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
]]>
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.
