Penn Maritime, Inc. v. Rhodes Electronic Services, Inc. et al
Filing
164
ORDER AND REASONS granting 151 Motion for Summary Judgment. Navico or plaintiff may move separately for the entry of partial judgment dismissing plaintiffs claims against Navico with prejudice, pursuant to Rule 54(b). Signed by Judge Helen G. Berrigan on 4/24/2014. (kac)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
PENN MARITIME, INC.
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NO. 11-2761
RHODES ELECTRONIC SERVICES, INC.,
ET AL.
SECTION “C”(4)
ORDER AND REASONS
The above-captioned matter concerns the collision of plaintiff’s articulated tug barge, the
BLUEFIN/PENN No. 80, with another articulated tug barge, the OSG CONSTITUTION on the
Delaware River on November 5, 2010. Plaintiff instituted this action to recover for the negligent
installation, calibration, and programming of the BLUEFIN’s autopilot system by defendants
Rhodes Electronic Services, Rhodes Electronics, Inc., and Rhodes Sales & Rentals, Inc. Rec.
Doc. 121. It further claimed against defendant Navico in a cause of action sounding in products
liability, negligence, and breach of warranty for defects in the design and manufacture of the
BLUEFIN’s autopilot system. Id.
Before the Court is defendant Navico’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Rec. Doc. 151.
In it, Navico argues that plaintiff cannot establish through competent evidence, that the
BLUEFIN’s collision was caused by a specific defect in its autopilot that existed when it left
Navico’s custody. This fact, they argue, is fatal to all three theories of liability asserted against it.
Plaintiff has not opposed this motion. It moved to continue hearing on this motion to
allow further factual development at the deposition of a Navico witness. Rec. Doc. 156. The
Court granted this motion, Rec. Doc. 158, whereupon plaintiff attempted to advise the Court via
letter that it had no opposition to Navico’s motion but wished to “discontinue” its action against
Navico, rather than have the Court adjudicate the motion for summary judgment. Rec. Doc. 162.
Plaintiff has not followed the proper procedure for voluntary dismissal. Moreover, assuming that
it had, this Court would have no basis to forgo resolution of Navico’s motion, which was filed
before any request to voluntarily dismiss these claims.
On a motion for summary judgment, the moving party “bears the initial responsibility of
informing the district court of the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of
‘[discovery], together with the affidavits, if any,’ which it believes demonstrate the absence of a
genuine issue of material fact.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S. Ct. 2548,
2553, 91 L. Ed. 2d 265 (1986). If the initial burden is met, the nonmoving party must “designate
specific facts showing there is a genuine issue for trial” using evidence cognizable under Rule
56. Id. at 324, 106 S. Ct. at 2253.
Navico has clearly surmounted the initial burden in this case by establishing the need for
plaintiff to prove the existence of a defect or unreasonably dangerous condition in its product
when it left Navico’s control in order to sustain any of its claims against Navico, see 1 Admiralty
& Mar. Law § 5-6 (5th Ed.), and pointing to evidence tending to demonstrate plaintiff’s inability
to make such a showing. Because plaintiff has failed to designate portions of evidence showing a
genuine issue of fact for trial, Navico is entitled to summary judgment. The Court does not reach
the hypothetical question of causation raised in Navico’s motion, which had assumed plaintiff’s
ability to demonstrate the defect that it alleged in Navico’s autopilot.
2
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Navico’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. Rec. Doc.
151. Navico or plaintiff may move separately for the entry of partial judgment dismissing
plaintiff’s claims against Navico with prejudice, pursuant to Rule 54(b).
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 24th day of April 2014.
____________________________________
HELEN G. BERRIGAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3
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?