Shaw Environmental & Infrastructure, Inc. et al v. Weeks Marine, Inc. et al
Filing
135
ORDER and REASONS granting 124 Motion for Entry of Judgment under Rule 54(b). Signed by Judge Helen G. Berrigan on 10/17/11. (mm, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
STEPHEN WAYNE WILLIAMS
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NO: 10-2309
TRAYLOR-MASSMAN-WEEKS, LLC, ET AL
SECTION: “C” (4)
ORDER & REASONS
Before the Court is Defendant’s Motion for Entry of Rule 54(b) Judgment filed by Shaw
Environmental & Infrastructure, Inc. (‘Shaw”). (Rec. Doc. 124). Based on the record, memoranda
of counsel, and the law, the Court GRANTS Shaw’s Motion for the following reasons.
BACKGROUND
The United States Army Corps of Engineers retained Shaw to oversee the Inner Harbor
Navigational Project (“Project”).
(Rec. Doc. 40-1 at 1).
Shaw contracted with several
subcontractors, including Defendants Traylor-Massman-Weeks, LLC (“TMW”) and Eustis
Engineering, Inc. (“Eustis”) to complete the Project. Id. Shaw and Eustis entered a Work
Agreement on July 12, 2008 that included a defense provision requiring Eustis to “defend,
indemnify and hold harmless” and “release” Shaw from all liabilities except those solely attributable
to Shaw. (Rec. Doc. 40-2 at 2). Plaintiff Stephen Wayne Williams, a Eustis employee, sustained
injuries while working on the Project. Plaintiff filed suit against Shaw, TMW, and Eustis, seeking
damages. (Rec. Doc. 1, 20). Shaw then filed a cross-claim against Eustis, seeking indemnity and
defense pursuant to the Work Agreement. (Rec. Doc. 24 at 2-3).
1
Subsequently, Shaw moved for summary judgment against Plaintiff, arguing that as a
principal contractor, it could not be held liable for any torts committed by its independent
contractors, including TMW and Eustis. On July 19, 2011, the Court granted that motion, absolving
Shaw of liability toward the Plaintiff. (Rec. Doc. 103 at 5). Additionally, Shaw moved for summary
judgment regarding its cross-claim against Eustis, arguing that the parties’ Work Agreement
obligated Eustis to defend and indemnify Shaw. On July 20, 2011, the Court granted that motion,
obligating Eustis to “defend and indemnify Shaw against liabilities that arise out of services
provided by Eustis.” (Rec. Doc. 107 at 5). Shaw now asks the Court to enter a final judgment on
its behalf pursuant to the Court’s July 19 and 20, 2011 Orders.
LAW & ANALYSIS
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) provides, in pertinent part, that:
When more than one claim for relief is presented in an action, whether as a claim,
counterclaim, cross claim, or third party claim, or when multiple parties are involved,
the court may direct the entry of a final judgment as to one or more but fewer than
all of the claims or parties only upon an express determination that there is no just
reason for delay and upon an express direction for the entry of judgment.
Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 54(b). In ruling on a Rule 54(b) motion, the Court “must first determine that it
is dealing with a ‘final judgment’” in that it is the “ultimate disposition” of a decision on a
cognizable claim. Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. General Electric Co., 446 U.S. 1, 7 (1980); see also
Briargrove Shopping Center Joint Venture v. Pilgrim Enterprises, Inc., 170 F.3d 536, 539 (5th Cir.
1999). Next, the Court must determine whether there is any just reason for delay by considering
judicial economy and the equities implicated. Id. In other words, the Court must weigh “the
inconvenience and costs of piecemeal review on the one hand and the danger of denying justice by
delay on the other.” Road Sprinkler Fitters Union v. Continental Sprinkler Co., 967 F.2d 145, 148
(5th Cir. 1992). Relevant factors include whether the claims were “separable from the others
2
remaining to be adjudicated and whether the nature of the claims already determined was such that
no appellate court would have to decide the same issues more than once even if there were
subsequent appeals.” Curtiss, 446 U.S. at 8.
A Rule 54(b) certification may not be appropriate when the underlying order granted
summary judgment on a duty to defend. The Fifth Circuit has held that a Rule 54(b) judgment is
premature where a party moves for summary judgment on a duty to defend and associated costs and
fees, and the court’s order disposes only of the duty to defend. Landry v. G.B.A., 762 F.2d 462, 464
(5th Cir. 1985). However, other courts have held that, as a general matter, certification of a ruling
on a duty to defend claim is appropriate for Rule 54(b) judgment. See, e.g., State of N.Y. v. AMRO
Realty Corp., 936 F.2d 1420, 1426 (2d Cir. 1991).
Finally, consent of the parties is not
determinative of whether the Court should exercise its discretion to enter a Rule 54(b) judgment.
Namasco Corp. v. Acadian Shipyard, Inc., 2001 WL 839760 (E.D. La.).
Here, Eustis did not file an opposition to the instant Motion. Shaw and Plaintiff agree that
the case involves multiple parties and claims, and that all claims involving Shaw are severable from
claims involving the other defendants, and that all of the claims involving Shaw have been
adjudicated. (Rec. Docs. 124-1 at 3, 125 at 2). Shaw and Plaintiff disagree, however, in balancing
the inconvenience of piecemeal review against the risk of denying justice by delay. Shaw argues
that there is “no just reason for delay” in issuing judgment because the only remaining issues involve
Eustis’s and TMW’s negligence, and the issues for which the Court granted summary judgment are
wholly distinct. (Rec. Doc. 124-1 at 3). Plaintiff submits that a 54(b) judgment may prejudice him
in the event that TMW and Eustis obtain a stay of proceedings from this Court while an appeal
against Shaw is pending, which would delay trial of the remaining issues. (Rec. Doc. 125 at 2).
The Court finds that both statutory requirements for a Rule 54(b) judgment have been met
by Shaw. The Court’s July 19 and 20, 2011 Orders granting summary judgment to Shaw against
3
Plaintiff and Eustis, respectively, disposed of all claims that each Plaintiff and Eustis had against
Shaw. Specificially, as to Plaintiff’s claims, the Court stated that “Shaw cannot be held liable for
any offenses committed by their sub-contractors Eustis or TMW.” (Rec. Doc. 103 at 5). As to
Eustis’s claims, the Court ordered Eustis to “defend and indemnify Shaw against liabilities that arise
out of services provided by Eustis.” (Rec. Doc. 107 at 5). No unresolved issues regarding the duty
to defend are apparent in this this Order, and Eustis fails to point to any such issues. (Rec. Docs.
107).
Furthermore, the issues disposed of in the Court’s Orders for summary judgment are distinct
from any remaining issues. In particular, the narrow holdings in the Court’s July 19, 2011 Order
were that Shaw and Eustis had a principal-independent contractor relationship, that Shaw did not
exercise operational control over Eustis, and thus that Shaw cannot be liable for TMW or Eustis’s
torts against Plaintiff. (Rec. Doc. 103 at 3-4). The holdings in the Court’s July 20, 2011 Order were
that Shaw did not “charter” the relevant barge and that the indemnity clause in the Work Agreement
was valid because it was “clear” and did not lead to absurd consequences, as required under
Louisiana law. (Rec. Doc. 4-5). Plaintiff’s remaining claims are against Eustis and TMW for
negligence. (Rec. Docs. 1, 21). Shaw has no further claims against Eustis. Plaintiff advanced no
arguments countering the fact that this Court will be inconvenienced by having to consider the same
issues again or that future developments in the litigation will interfere with appellate review of the
issues already disposed of in the Court’s July 19 and 20, 2011 Orders. Finally, Plaintiff offers no
authority for its claim that 54(b) certification in Shaw’s favor will prejudice Plaintiff. Thus, the
Court finds that there is no just reason for delay in issuing judgment in favor of Shaw against
Plaintiff pursuant to its July 19, 2011 Order and against Eustis pursuant to its July 20, 2011 Order.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Shaw Environmental & Infrastructure, Inc.’s Motion for
4
Entry of Rule 54(b) Judgment is GRANTED. (Rec. Doc. 124).
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 17th day of October, 2011.
_______________________________________
HELEN G. BERRIGAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
5
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?