G & G Steel, Inc. v. Sea Wolf Marine Transportation, LLC., No. 1:2006cv01840 - Document 32 (S.D.N.Y. 2009)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER. # 98181 The Clerk of the Court is directed to dismiss the complaint with prejudice. (Signed by Judge Charles S. Haight on 10/13/09) (djc) Modified on 10/27/2009 (eef).

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ------------------------------------------------------------- o& )( 0 STEEL, INC., Plaintiff, 06 Civ. 1840 (CSH) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER -againstSEA WOLF MARINE TRANSPORTATION, LLC, Defendant. ------------------------------------------------------------- )( Haight, Senior District Judge: Defendant Sea Wolf Marine Transportation, LLC ("Sea Wolf') moves pursuant to Rule 12(b) (6) ofthe Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to dismiss the complaint ofplaintiff 0 & 0 Steel, Inc. ("0 & 0") for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, 1 or in the alternative for summary judgment under Rule 56. The Court treats the motion as falling under Rule 56, because relevant documents, namely a time charter party and marine insurance policies, are not specifically incorporated in the complaint but are placed before the Court as exhibits to the affidavit of 0 & O's president. All pertinent issues of fact and law have been thoroughly briefed by the parties and the case is ripe for adjudication under Rule 56. The factual background and procedural history of the case, which involves a maritime tort, are set forth in the Court's prior opinion in this case, reported at 2008 WL 192049 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 23, 2008) ("the January Opinion"), familiarity with which is assumed, and need not be recounted here. Sea Wolfs motion papers do not specify which of the several provisions of Rule 12 it relies upon. The thrust of the motion would appear to be under Rule 12(b)(6). 1 1 Sea Wolfs contention that the Court's prior ruling constitutes the law of the case and requires dismissal of the complaint is correct. G & G's arguments to the contrary repeat the contentions and recite the authorities that the Court rejected in the January Opinion, holding that G & G's proposed amended complaint was futile under the governing admiralty law. DismissalofG & G's original complaint necessarily follows from the January Opinion as the night the day. It is not necessary for Sea Wolf to invoke the law ofthe case doctrine. G & G' s original complaint must be dismissed for the reasons stated in the January Opinion refusing to allow its proposed amended complaint. The Clerk of the Court is directed to dismiss the complaint with prejudice. It is SO ORDERED. Dated: New York, New York October 13, 2009 CHARLES S. HAIGHT; JR.' <>'" -",:,;~'" SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT mDGE 2

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.