Chevron Midstream Pipelines LLC et al v. Settoon Towing LLC, et al

Filing 296

ORDER denying 226 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 12/9/14. (Reference: all cases)(jrc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
CHEVRON MIDSTREAM PIPELINES
LLC, ET AL.

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO: 13-2809 C/W 133197

SETTOON TOWING LLC, ET AL.

SECTION: "A" (5)

ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is a Second Motion to Dismiss Punitive Damage Claims
(Rec. Doc. 226) filed by Chevron Midstream Pipelines LLC, Chevron Pipe Line Company,
and Chevron U.S.A., Inc. (collectively “Chevron”). Claimants Vernon G. Whittington and
Leroy Gilling, Jr. (collectively "Claimants") oppose the motion. The motion, submitted for
consideration on November 5, 2014, is before the Court on the briefs without oral argument.
Via the instant motion, Chevron once again moves for judgment as a matter of law on
Claimants' claims for punitive damages under general maritime law. Chevron contends that
with trial scheduled to begin in this matter on April 27, 2015, the parties need clarity
concerning the damages recoverable at trial. (Rec. Doc. 226-1, Chevron's Memo at 8).
Earlier this year the Court denied without prejudice Chevron's first motion to dismiss
Claimants' punitive damages claims. (Rec. Doc. 163; Order 7/29/14). The Court denied the
motion because the Fifth Circuit had not yet issued its en banc ruling in McBride v. Estis
Well Service, LLC, 768 F.3d 382 (5th Cir. 2014), which has since been released. The Court
also mentioned the Lorenzo Williams v. Linder Oil Company appeal, which the Fifth Circuit
had put on hold pending the outcome in McBride. At the time the Court explained that
because trial was months away the Court saw no reason to rush its ruling, particularly with
the prospect of forthcoming guidance from the Fifth Circuit. (Rec. Doc. 163 at 2).

1

The en banc McBride decision is a straightforward application of the Miles
uniformity principle. The appeal that addresses the issue in this case, i.e., the continued
viability of Scarborough v. Clemco Industries, 391 F.3d 660 (5th Cir. 2004) (holding that a
seaman cannot recover non-pecuniary damages against a third-party), is actually the
Williams case. The Court recognizes that the Williams appeal has not yet been set for oral
argument but the Court continues to believe that a ruling on the punitive damages issue at
this time would be premature. This case is scheduled to be tried to the bench, not to a jury,
and the trial is expected to last ten days. The Court is not persuaded that prematurely (and
perhaps erroneously) dismissing the claim for punitive damages prior to trial will eliminate
any witnesses or save a significant amount of trial time. Moreover, if Chevron's conduct as
proven at trial does not satisfy the requirements for punitive damages then the legal issue
presented will be moot. Chevron and the Claimants should prepare for trial with the
expectation that the punitive damages claim will be considered.
Accordingly, and for the foregoing reasons;
IT IS ORDERED that the Second Motion to Dismiss Punitive Damage
Claims (Rec. Doc. 226) filed by Chevron is DENIED.
December 9, 2014
JAY C. ZAINEY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2