Exxon Mobil Corporation v. Daybrook Fisheries, Inc et al

Filing 202

ORDER AND REASONS denying 166 and 168 Motions for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Carl Barbier on 5/3/2011. (Reference: All Cases)(mmm, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO: 08-4654 c/w
09-2756

DAYBROOK FISHERIES, INC.,
ET. AL.

SECTION: "J"(2)

ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court are (1) Defendant ComNav Marine Ltd.’s
(“ComNav”)

Motion

for

Summary

Judgment

(Rec.

Doc.

166)

and

supporting memorandum (Rec. Doc. 193) and (2) Defendant E.S.
Ritchie & Sons, Inc.’s, (“Ritchie”) Motion for Summary Judgment
(Rec. Doc. 168) and supporting memorandum (Rec. Doc. 191), as well
as Plaintiff Exxon Mobil Corporation’s (“Exxon”) Memoranda in
Opposition (Rec. Docs. 181 and 185) and Third-Party Plaintiffs
Daybrook Fisheries, Inc., (“Daybrook”) and Westbank Corporation’s
(“Westbank”) Memorandum in Opposition (Rec. Doc. 182).
This case involves an allision between the F/V KITTIWAKE,
managed and operated by Daybrook and owned by Westbank, and the
fixed Grand Isle 18A Platform, owned and operated by Exxon.

The

parties disagree over

the cause of the allision and specifically

whether the allision was caused by the KITTIWAKE’s autopilot
navigation system, manufactured by ComNav, and the autopilot’s
magnetic compass, manufactured by Ritchie.

ComNav and Ritchie

argue that there is no evidence to indicate that the KITTIWAKE’s
autopilot and magnetic compass malfunctioned, and the allision was
due to the negligence of the KITTIWAKE’s captain and pilot. On the
other hand, Exxon, Daybrook, and Westbank argue that discovery is
not complete, and the pilot’s testimony that he never changed the
coordinates on the autopilot indicate that a malfunctioning of the
autopilot and magnetic compass at least partially caused the
allision.
Summary judgment is appropriate if “there is no genuine issue
as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law.”

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c).

The moving

party bears the initial burden of demonstrating the absence of a
genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S.
317, 323 (1986). If that burden has been met, the non-moving party
must then come forward and establish the specific material facts in
dispute to survive summary judgment.

Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co.

v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 588 (1986).
In this case, the Court finds that genuine issues of material
fact regarding the cause of the allision still exist which preclude
2

summary judgment.

Because discovery into this issue is still

ongoing, ComNav and Ritchie’s motions for summary judgment are
premature.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that ComNav and Ritchie’s Motions for Summary
Judgment (Rec. Docs. 166 and 168) are DENIED.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 3rd day of May, 2011.

CARL J. BARBIER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3