Wolz v. BP Exploration and Production, Inc. et al
Filing
37
ORDER & REASONS: granting 28 B&S's Motion for Summary Judgment; FURTHER ORDERED that all claims by Plaintiff against B&S Welding, Inc. are hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Carl Barbier on 4/10/14. (sek)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
RICKEY WOLZ
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NO: 13-5112
BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION,
INC. and B&S WELDING, INC.
SECTION: J
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is a Motion for Summary Judgment filed by
Defendant B&S Welding, Inc. (hereinafter "B&S") (Rec. Doc. 28).
Plaintiff has not filed an opposition. Considering the motion and
the record, the Court finds, for the reasons expressed below,
that the motion should be GRANTED.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND BACKGROUND FACTS
Plaintiff, an employee of DSX Enterprises, Inc., alleges
that
he
was
injured
aboard
the
MAD
DOG
platform,
owned
and
operated by BP Exploration & Production, Inc. (hereinafter "BP"),
as the result of improper rigging used on the platform. Plaintiff
claims that when a rigger, allegedly employed by B&S, began to
unrig an improperly installed chain fall, Plaintiff's hand was
crushed by a piece of falling equipment.
LEGAL STANDARD
Summary judgment is appropriate when "the pleadings, the
discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits
show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and
that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law."
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986) (citing FED.
R. CIV. P. 56©); Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.2d 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 refrains from making credibility determinations or
weighing the evidence."
Delta & Pine Land Co. v. Nationwide
Agribusiness Ins. Co., 530 F.3d 395, 398 (5th Cir. 2008). The
Court will examine the evidence in the light most favorable to
the nonmoving party. Naquin v. Fluor Daniel Servs. Corp., 935 F.
Supp. 847, 848 (E.D. La. 1996) (citing United States v. Diebold,
Inc., 369 U.S. 654, 655 (1962)). While all reasonable inferences
are drawn in favor of the nonmoving party, a party cannot defeat
summary judgment with conclusory allegations or unsubstantiated
assertions. Little, 37 F.2d at 1075. A Court ultimately must be
satisfied that "a reasonable jury could not return a verdict for
the nonmoving party." Delta, 530 F.3d at 399.
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 which 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, 1263-64 (5th
Cir.
1991)
(citation
omitted).
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
burden
then
submitting
showing
shifts
or
that
to
referring
a
the
to
genuine
nonmoving
evidence,
issue
party,
set
exists.
See
out
who
must,
specific
id.
at
by
facts
324.
The
nonmovant may not rest upon the pleadings but must identify
specific facts that establish a genuine issue for trial. See,
e.g., id. at 325; Little, 37 F.3d at 1075.
DISCUSSION
It will be Plaintiff's burden of proof at trial to show that
B&S is liable for his injuries. Plaintiff must therefore submit
sufficient evidence to show that a reasonable jury could find B&S
liable
for
his
injuries.
Plaintiff
admits
that
he
does
not
remember the name of the rigger involved in the incident. (Rec.
Doc. 28-2, p. 4). B&S points out that Plaintiff has failed to
offer any information identifying the rigger's employer as B&S,
or as any other entity. B&S has submitted the affidavit of James
T. Bourne, the owner of B&S, who asserts that B&S has never
performed any work for BP and did not perform any work on the MAD
DOG platform. (Rec. Doc. 28-3, p. 1-2).
Plaintiff has submitted
no evidence to show that any employee of B&S was present on the
platform at the time of the incident.
The Court therefore finds that B&S has successfully pointed
to an absence of evidence to support Plaintiff's claims against
it, and there is thus no genuine issue of material fact as to
whether B&S is liable for Plaintiff's injuries.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that B&S's Motion for Summary Judgment
(Rec. Doc. 28) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all claims by Plaintiff against
B&S Welding, Inc. are hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 10th day of April, 2014.
____________________________
CARL J. BARBIER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?