Offshore Specialty Fabricators, L.L.C. et al v. Dumas International, Inc.
Filing
102
ORDER AND REASONS denying 93 Motion for New Trial. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
OFFSHORE SPECIALTY
FABRICATORS, LLC, et al.,
Plaintiff
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
No.
DUMAS INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
Defendant
SECTION “E”
11-248
ORDER AND REASONS
After a four-day bench trial and extensive post-trial briefing, the Court issued an
opinion finding against Plaintiffs Offshore Speciality Fabricators, LLC and Offshore
Express, LLC (together, “OSF”) on their claim against Defendant Dumas International, Inc.
(“Dumas”) for negligent work on one of OSF’s vessels, and for Dumas on Dumas’s
counterclaim against OSF for unpaid invoices.1 OSF now moves pursuant to Rule 59 for a
new trial or to alter or amend the judgment.2 The Court has reviewed Dumas's opposition,3
the record, and the applicable law, and denies the motion.
Pursuant to Rule 59, the Court may order a new nonjury trial "for any reason for
which a rehearing has heretofore been granted in a suit in equity in federal court." Fed. R.
Civ. P. 59(a)(1)(B). "A motion for a new trial in a nonjury case or a petition for rehearing
should be based upon manifest error of law or mistake of fact, and a judgment should not
be set aside except for substantial reasons." 11 Charles Alan Wright, et al., Federal Practice
and Procedure § 2804 (3d ed. 2013); accord Theriot v. Parish of Jefferson, 966 F. Supp.
1
R. Doc. 91.
2
R. Doc. 93.
3
R. Doc. 99.
1
1435, 1452 (E.D. La. 1997).
OSF disputes the Court's factual findings with respect to (1) whether grounding was
an equally plausible cause of the engine damage, (2) whether the evidence was sufficient
to prove that body-bound bolts were not used, and (3) whether Dumas should have
recovered on either of its disputed invoices. But these contentions were fully aired in the
post-trial briefing and decided by the Court. OSF may disagree but it has not articulated
any manifest error of fact warranting any post-trial relief.
A.
Grounding
First, OSF challenges the Court's observation that the grounding of the M/V
OFFSHORE KING was an "equally plausible legal cause for any misalignment."4 This
argument fails for several reasons. First, it relies on testimony which the Court expressly
did not credit.5 Second, the Court concluded that grounding was "equally plausible"
because of the paucity of OSF's evidence that anything Dumas did caused the damage, not
because of the strength of the evidence in favor of grounding. OSF had the burden to prove
that Dumas's negligence caused the damage, but at trial there was "insufficient information
to determine what caused the engine to fail."6 Grounding was not an affirmative defense,
as OSF contends, and Dumas did not have any burden of proof with respect to that theory.7
OSF articulates no manifest error in the Court's conclusion that OSF failed to prove
causation.
4
R. Doc. 91 at 11.
5
Id. at 12.
6
Id. at 4, 12.
7
R. Doc. 93-1 at 16.
2
B.
Body-Bound Bolts
OSF also continues to insist that it is entitled to a new trial because Dumas's
employee Weekly partially cut holes to mount the engine, rather than using completely
drilled holes. OSF presents this as evidence that Weekly did not install body-bound bolts
on the engine and that this caused the failure.8 This too fails to warrant any post-trial relief.
First, OSF simply ignores substantial contradictory record evidence that body-bound bolts
may be used in a hole partially cut with a torch rather than a drill, or that Chockfast is a
satisfactory alternative.9 But more importantly, the argument misses the point. Even if
Weekly partially cut the holes with a torch and negligently failed to use body-bound bolts,
OSF still failed to show how that negligence caused the engine failure.10 This Rule 59
motion selectively rehashes the evidence regarding the bolt holes, but cites no evidence of
causation overlooked by the Court.
There was "simply insufficient information to
determine what caused the engine to fail in February 2010," and OSF identifies no manifest
error of fact in that conclusion.
C.
Dumas' Counter Claim
Finally, OSF challenges the Court's award in favor of Dumas on two unpaid invoices.
With respect to the $7,732.50 invoice, the credible testimony at trial established that the
work underlying that invoice was done at OSF's request.11 The record does not support
8
R. Doc. 93-1 at 21-23.
9
See R. Doc. 99 at 6-10.
10
R. Doc. 91 at 10.
11
R. Doc. 84-7 at 24-25.
3
OSF's contention that Dumas billed the $7,732.50 for work done only "to protect itself."12
With respect to the $22,911.69 awarded for work billed in the second invoice, OSF
again urges that the March 2010 alignment "had to be redone."13 For the same reasons set
forth in the Court's opinion, "the evidence at trial ... establishes that, in addition to other
tasks, Dumas competently re-aligned the starboard main engine,"14 as confirmed by OSF's
acceptance of that realignment.15 Thus, OSF has failed to show any manifest error of law
or fact and Dumas is entitled to recover on the invoices, as reduced and explained in the
Court's opinion.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons,
IT IS ORDERED that OSF's motion is DENIED.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 15th day of April, 2014.
_____________________________
SUSIE MORGAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
12
R. Doc. 93-1 at 12.
13
Id. at 13.
14
R. Doc. 91 at 14.
15
R. Doc. 84-1 at 63.
4
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?