Davis et al v. O'Brien's Response Management, L.L.C.
Filing
19
ORDER AND REASONS granting 18 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Chief Judge Sarah S. Vance on 6/25/2014. (cms)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
RAY DAVIS, JR., et al.
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NO: 13-4853
O'BRIEN'S RESPONSE MANAGEMENT,
LLC
SECTION: R(3)
ORDER AND REASONS
Defendant O'Brien's Response Management, LLC ("ORM") moves
for summary judgment.1 Plaintiffs do not oppose the motion. For
the following reasons, the Court GRANTS ORM's motion.
I.
Background
Plaintiffs Ray Davis, Jr. and Henry Johnson filed suit
against ORM under general maritime law and the Longshore and
Harbor Workers' Compensation Act.2 They allege that ORM was the
"owner, owner pro hac vice, operator and/or charterer" of the M/V
SAGE JUANITA, and that Plaintiffs were engaged as maritime
workers aboard that vessel.3 They allege that, on or about June
21, 2010, they were performing their duties when the vessel
collided with a boat beacon, causing them to fall to the deck and
1
R. Doc. 18.
2
R. Doc. 1.
3
Id. at 2.
sustain severe injuries.4 They allege that "the sole and
proximate cause of the accident and their injuries . . . was the
unseaworthiness of the vessel and/or negligence and/or failure of
the defendants, and their employees, servants and/or agents, in
carrying out their obligations and duties."5
ORM moves for summary judgment. It argues that it was
"neither the owner, owner pro hac vice, operator or charterer of
the [SAGE JUANITA], was not the employer of either the plaintiffs
or the crew of that vessel, and was in no way responsible for the
operation or navigation of that vessel when it collided with a
beacon thereby allegedly causing injury to plaintiffs."6
Plaintiffs have filed no opposition to ORM's motion.
II.
Summary Judgment Standard
Summary judgment is warranted when "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." Fed. R. Civ.
P. 56(a); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986);
Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069, 1075 (5th Cir. 1994).
When assessing whether a dispute as to any material fact exists,
the Court considers "all of the evidence in the record but
4
Id. at 2-3.
5
Id. at 3.
6
R. Doc. 18 at 1.
2
refrains from making credibility determinations or weighing the
evidence." Delta & Pine Land Co. v. Nationwide Agribusiness Ins.
Co., 530 F.3d 395, 398-399 (5th Cir. 2008). The Court must draw
reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party, but
"unsupported allegations or affidavits setting forth ultimate or
conclusory facts and conclusions of law are insufficient to
either support or defeat a motion for summary judgment." Galindo
v. Precision Am. Corp., 754 F.2d 1212, 1216 (5th Cir. 1985)
(quotation marks removed).
If the dispositive issue is one on which the moving party
will bear the burden of proof at trial, the moving party "must
come forward with evidence that would entitle it to a directed
verdict if the evidence went uncontroverted at trial." Int'l
Shortstop, Inc. v. Rally's, Inc., 939 F.2d 1257, 1264-65 (5th
Cir. 1991) (quotation marks removed). The nonmoving party can
then defeat the motion by either countering with sufficient
evidence of its own, or "showing that the moving party's evidence
is so sheer that it may not persuade the reasonable fact-finder
to return a verdict in favor of the moving party." Id. at 1265.
If the dispositive issue is one on which the nonmoving party
will bear the burden of proof at trial, the moving party may
satisfy its burden by merely pointing out that the evidence in
the record is insufficient with respect to an essential element
of the nonmoving party's claim. See Celotex, 477 U.S. at 325. The
3
burden then shifts to the nonmoving party, who must, by
submitting or referring to evidence, set out specific facts
showing that a genuine issue exists. See id. at 324.
The nonmovant may not rest upon the pleadings but must
identify specific facts that establish a genuine issue for trial.
Id.; see also Little, 37 F.3d at 1075 ("Rule 56 'mandates the
entry of summary judgment, after adequate time for discovery and
upon motion, against a party who fails to make a showing
sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to
that party’s case, and on which that party will bear the burden
of proof at trial.'") (quoting Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322).
III. Discussion
To prevail on their claims against ORM, Plaintiffs must
establish that ORM was the owner or owner pro hac vice of the
SAGE JUANTIA or otherwise employed the vessel's crew. See Workman
v. City of New York, 179 U.S. 552, 573 (1900) ("A recovery can be
had in personam . . . for a maritime tort when the relation
existing between the owner and the master and crew of the vessel,
at the time of the negligent collision, was that of master and
servant."); Eskine v. United Barge Co., 484 F.2d 1194, 1196 (5th
Cir. 1973) (owner pro hac vice of vessel may be held liable for
damages resulting from unseaworthiness).
4
ORM offers affidavits from its CEO and Human Resources
Manager indicating that, on June 21, 2010, it did not own the
SAGE JUANITA, did not have the SAGE JUANITA under charter, did
not have direct control over the SAGE JUANITA, and did not
employee Davis or Johnson.7 In addition, it offers evidence that
the owner of the vessel was Murvin Gaspard;8 that, at the time of
the accident, Gaspard's son Gage was operating the vessel;9 and
that ORM did not employee either Murvin or Gage Gaspard.10
Plaintiffs offer no evidence to show that ORM owned and/or
exercised controlled over the SAGE JUANITA or its crew. Indeed,
they offer no opposition at all to ORM's motion. Accordingly, the
Court finds that ORM is entitled to summary judgment.
IV.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS ORM's motion for
summary judgment.
25th
New Orleans, Louisiana, this ______ day of June, 2014.
SARAH S. VANCE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
7
R. Docs. 18-3, 18-4.
8
R. Doc. 18-6 at 3; R. Doc. 18-7 at 1; R. Doc. 18-8 at 1.
9
R. Doc. 18-6 at 2.
10
R. Doc. 18-4.
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?