IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPLAINT OF JACKSON CREEK MARINE, LLC AS OWNER OF THE TUG JACQUELINE A, No. 2:2016cv00098 - Document 81 (E.D. Va. 2017)
Court Description: ORDER Granting 41 Motion for Summary Judgment; Adopting Report and Recommendations re 67 Report and Recommendations. The Court, having reviewed the record and examined Perdue's objections to the Report and Recommendation, and having ma de de novo findings with respect to the portions objected to, does hereby ADOPT and APPROVE the findings and recommendations set forth in the Report and Recommendation. It is, therefore, ORDERED that Jackson Creek's Motion for Summary Judgmen t (ECF No. 41) as to Perdue's crossclaims be GRANTED. The remaining parties are ORDERED to participate in Court-assisted settlement efforts to attempt to resolve the claims that remain pending in this matter. Counsel are DIRECTED to contact t he Court's Docket Clerk at 757-222-7222, within thirty (30) days of entry of this Order to schedule a settlement conference before a United States Magistrate Judge.. Signed by District Judge Arenda L. Wright Allen on 8/16/17 and filed 8/17/17. Copies distributed to all parties 8/17/17. (ldab, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPLAINT OF JACKSON CREEK MARINE, LLC AS OWNER OF THE TUG JACQUELINE A Doc. 81 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Norfolk Division - In Admiralty IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPLAINT OF JACKSON CREEK MARINE, LLC, AS OWNER OF THE TUG JACQUELINE A Civil No. 2:16-cv-98 ORDER Before the Court is a Motion for Summary Judgment from Limitation Plaintiff Jackson Creek Marine, LLC ("Jackson Creek") on the claims of cross-claimants Perdue Agribusiness, LLC; Perdue Farms, Inc.; and Perdue Foods, LLC (collectively "Perdue"). See Mot. Summ. J. (ECF No. 41). This Court referred the matter to a United States Magistrate Judge for report and recommendation in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b). The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation recommends that Jackson Creek's Motion for Summary Judgment be granted. See R&R (ECF No. 67). In relevant part, the Report and Recommendation concludes that there is no triable issues of fact regarding Perdue's indemnity claims because, under the circumstances presented, proportionately liable only for its own negligence. Perdue can be held Perdue timely filed an Objection to this portion of the Report and Recommendation, and Jackson Creek responded. See Objection (ECF No. 76); see also Resp. (ECF No. 80). Dockets.Justia.com This Court shall make a cle novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation or specified findings and recommendations to which objection is made. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). The Court has reviewed the issue de novo and considered the Objection and Response carefully. The Magistrate Judge's conclusion regarding Perdue's claim to contractual indemnity is sound.' The Report and Recommendation is adopted in its entirety. CONCLUSION The Court, having reviewed the record and examined Perdue's objections to the Report and Recommendation, and having made de novo findings with respect to the portions objected to, does hereby ADOPT and APPROVE the findings and recommendations set forth in the Report and Recommendation. It is, therefore, ORDERED that Jackson Creek's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 41) as to Perdue's crossclaims be GRANTED. The remaining parties are ORDERED to participate in Court-assisted settlement efforts to attempt to resolve the claims that remain pending in this matter. Counsel are DIRECTED to contact the Court's Docket Clerk at 757-222-7222, within thirty (30) days of entry of this Order to schedule a settlement conference before a United States Magistrate Judge. The Clerk is REQUESTED to send a copy of this Order to the Magistrate Judge and to all counsel of record. IT IS SO ORDERED. C/^" • August /(p. 2017 ArendaTrrWfight Allen United States District Judge Norfolk, Virginia ' See 2 Thomas J. Schoi-nbaum, Admiralty and Maritimr Law § 5-9 {5th ed.) ("The [warranty of workmanlike performance] doctrine is not fuily applicable to lowing contracts, however, at leasl insofar as it conflicts with the admiralty rule imposing liability only for negligent conduct."); see also id § 12-4 ("Because of the manifest unfairness of granting indemnity lo a parly guilty of concurrent negligence, the courts have abandoned indemnity in favor of applying the rule of comparative fault, except in the context of Ryan itself, where the tow is liable without fault and the lug is guilty of negligence.").
]]>
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.
