AMC Marine Services, Inc. v. Poydras Energy Partners, L.L.C.
Filing
57
ORDER AND OPINION GRANTING 32 Motion for Summary Judgment, as set forth in document. Signed by Judge Stanwood R. Duval, Jr on 4/23/2013. (swd, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
AMC MARINE SERVICE, INC.
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NO. 12-1168
POYDRAS ENERGY PARTNERS,
L.L.C.
SECTION "K"(1)
ORDER AND OPINION
Before the Court is the "Motion for Summary Judgment" filed on behalf of intervenors The
Grand, Ltd. ("Grand"), and Laredo Offshore Services, Inc. ("Laredo") (Doc. 32). Having reviewed
the pleadings, memoranda, and relevant law, the Court, for the reasons assigned, GRANTS the
motion.
Background
On October 29, 2009, Grand and Laredo, as "Owner" executed a Master Time Charter
Agreement with AMC Liftboats, Inc. ("Liftboats"), identified as "Charterer." That agreement
provides that the Master Time Charter Agreement "together with any Short Form between OWNER
and CHARTERER dated subsequent to the date hereof, shall govern the respective rights and duties
of OWNER AND CHARTERER." Doc. 32-2, p. 1. The Master Time Charter Agreement further
provides that "CHARTERER shall pay one and one-half percent ( 1 ½ %) service charge per month
on all receivables due and payable to OWNER unpaid thirty (30) days or more after the posted date
of the OWNER's invoices." Id. at p.2.
Following a conversation with a representative of Liftboats, on November 18, 2011, Adam
Cheramie, acting on behalf of Laredo executed a Job Report and a Short Form - Confirmation of
Hire for the hire of the DULARGE. Both forms identify AMC Liftboats, Inc." as the "customer"
and set forth, among other things, the duration of the charter of the DULARGE and the rates
applicable to the charter. Doc. 32-4. In turn, AMC Marine Service, Inc. ("AMC") chartered the
DULARGE to Poydras Energy Partners, L.L.C. and ultimately invoiced Poydras $107,645.00 for
the services of the DULARGE. Poydras has not made any payment to AMC. Laredo submitted
invoices totaling $104,045.00 to Liftboats for the charter of the DULARGE. Liftboats has not made
any payment on the amount invoiced.
AMC and Liftboats filed suit against Poydras seeking, among other things, to recover the
outstanding amount allegedly owed as charter hire for the DULARGE, as well as a 15% late fee for
failure to pay the invoiced amount within 30 days and legal fees and costs incurred in filing suit to
collect the amount allegedly due. Grand and Laredo then filed an intervention against AMC Marine
Services, Inc. to recover the outstanding amount of the charter hire, the service charge defined in
the Master Time Charter Agreement, and attorneys fees and costs. Intervenors later supplemented
and amended their intervention and added Liftboats as a defendant in intervention. Intervenors now
seek summary judgment against Liftboats for the alleged outstanding amounts owed to them.
Summary Judgment Standard
Rule 56(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that summary judgment should
be granted "if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the
movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." The party moving for summary judgment bears
the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion, and identifying
those portions of the record "which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of
material fact." Stults v. Conoco, 76 F.3d 651 (5th Cir.1996), citing Skotak v. Tenneco Resins, Inc.,
953 F.2d 909, 912-13 (5th Cir.), quoting Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct.
2
2548, 2552-53, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). When the moving party has carried its burden under Rule
56, its opponent must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the
material facts. The nonmoving party must come forward with "specific facts showing that there is
a genuine issue for trial." Matsushita Elec. Industrial Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 588,
106 S.Ct. 1348, 1356, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986); Tubacex, Inc. v. M/V Risan, 45 F.3d 951, 954 (5th
Cir.1995).
“A genuine issue of material fact exists ‘if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return
a verdict for the nonmoving party.’ ” Pylant v. Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company, 497
F.3d 536, 538 (5th Cir. 2007) quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct.
2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). Summary judgment evidence must be “viewed in the light most
favorable to the nonmovant, with all factual inferences made in the nonmovant’s favor.” Bazan ex
rel Bazan v. Hildago County, 246 F.3d 481, 489 (5th Cir. 2001), citing Anderson v. LiHoweverberty
Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. at 255, 106 S.Ct. at 2513.
[C]onclusory statements, speculation, and unsubstantiated assertions
cannot defeat a motion for summary judgment. The Court has no
duty to search the record for material fact issues. Rather, the party
opposing the summary judgment is required to identify specific
evidence in the record and to articulate precisely how this evidence
supports his claim.
RSR Corporation v. International Insurance Company, 612 F.3rd 851,857 (5th Cir. 2010).
Law and Analysis
It is undisputed that Liftboats executed a "Master Time Charter Agreement" with Laredo.
It is also undisputed that the Laredo Job Report and the Short Form - Confirmation of Hire and
identify Liftboats as the "customer" for the use of the DULARGE. Liftboats does not dispute the
amount of the charter hire sought by Laredo. Rather, Liftboats denies that it is the party responsible
3
for payment of that charter hire and urges that it was simply an affiliate of AMC which brokered the
charter of the DULARGE to Poydras.
Liftboats has not provided any competent summary judgment evidence indicating that it was
not the charterer of the vessel and that AMC was the broker of the charter. The declaration of Dean
Guidry, the General Manager of Liftboats, states that:
•
•
•
AMC brokered the DULARGE to Poydras;
that Laredo knew before the DULARGE went on charter on
November 22, 2011 that it would be working for Poydras and
that Poydras would pay the charter hire due to Laredo, and
that prior to the DULARGE going on charter on November
22, 2011, Laredo knew that AMC was"only acting as the
broker for Poydras Energy, which was the charterer."
Doc. 33-2, Ex. 1. That declaration does not raise a genuine issue of material fact concerning the
status of Liftboats as a charterer of the DULARGE responsible to Laredo for the charter hire.
Moreover, the Master Time Charter Agreement, signed by Liftboats, clearly provides for the
imposition of a 1 ½% service fee if payment of charter hire is not made within thirty days of Laredo
posting the invoice. Accordingly, the Court grants intervenors' motion for summary judgment.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 23rd day of April, 2013.
STANWOOD R. DUVAL, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?