In Re: Weber Marine, LLC

Filing 78

ORDER denying 61 Motion to Stay. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey. (jrc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
IN RE WEBER MARINE, LLC

CIVIL ACTION
NO: 14-1656
SECTION: "A" (4)

ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is a Motion to Enter Stipulation and to Lift Injunction and
Stay of Proceedings (Rec. Doc. 61) filed by Paul Perrier, Sr., et al. Petitioner-inlimitation Weber Marine, LLC opposes the motion. The motion, noticed for submission
on January 27, 2016, is before the Court on the briefs without oral argument.
On February 5, 2014, the Perrier plaintiffs (collectively "Perrier") filed suit in state
court (23rd JDC, St. James Parish) to recover for injuries that Paul Perrier, Sr. allegedly
sustained when he fell from a crew boat owned and operated by Weber Marine. That
incident involving Weber Marine's vessel is alleged to have occurred on November 11,
2012.
On July 18, 2014, Weber Marine filed a limitation complaint in this district as
owner and operator of the M/V MISS RACHEL, which is the vessel that was involved in
the November 11, 2012 incident. The Court's order of August 6, 2014, directed all
persons asserting claims for any and all losses resulting from or incidental to the
occurrences and happenings recited in the limitation Complaint to file their respective
claims with the Clerk. (Rec. Doc. 4, Order Directing Issuance of Restraining Order
Page 1 of 3

Against Prosecution of Claims). The order also enjoined further prosecution of any
action or proceeding against the Complainant, with respect to any claims for which the
Complainant seeks exoneration or limitation, including any claim arising out of or
connected with the November 11, 2012 incident described in the Complaint. (Id.).
Perrier, Cooper, and American Longshore Mutual Association, Ltd. filed their respective
answers/claims into the record. (Rec. Docs. 5, 10, and 9). A bench trial is scheduled to
commence on May 2, 2016. (Rec. Doc. 58).
Perrier now unilaterally seeks to enter a stipulation as to Weber Marine’s rights
under the Limitation Act so that Perrier can pursue his claims against Weber Marine in
state court. According to Perrier, he should be considered the sole claimant in this case
because the claims asserted by Cooper and American Longshore are derivative of his
claims.
The sole issue presented by Perrier’s motion is whether this case presents a sole
claimant situation or a multiple claimant situation. In a multiple claimant situation all
claimants must enter into an appropriate stipulation to protect the vessel owner’s rights
under the Limitation Act. 1 Odeco Oil & Gas Co., v. Bonnette, 74 F.3d 671, 674 (5th Cir.
1996) (citing Texaco, Inc. v. Williams, 47 F.3d 765, 768 (5th Cir. 1995)). Thus, if this
case involves multiple claimants then Perrier’s request to proceed in state court must be
denied because Cooper and American Longshore have declined to enter into a
stipulation.

11 Perrier concedes that his claim alone exceeds the value of Weber Marine’s vessel. (Rec. Doc.

61-4 at 6).
Page 2 of 3

The Court agrees with Weber Marine’s contention that Odeco Oil, supra,
controls. In Odeco Oil, the Fifth Circuit clarified that parties seeking indemnification and
contribution from a vessel owner are considered claimants under the Limitation Act. 74
F.3d at 675. In this case, Cooper’s and American Longshore’s claims are not mere
subrogation claims that derive solely from Perrier’s tort recovery. Cooper had contracted
with Weber Marine for vessel services and the contract allegedly contained
indemnification language in Cooper’s favor that both Cooper and American Longshore
are attempting to enforce against Weber Marine. (Rec. Doc. 9 ¶¶ 12-18; Rec. Doc. 10
¶¶ 11-17). Thus, Cooper and American Longshore’s claims are not solely derivative of
Perrier’s claims, and this case does present a multiple claimant situation. Because all
claimants have not entered into a stipulation to protect Weber Marine’s rights under the
Limitation Act, Perrier’s motion must be DENIED.
Accordingly, and for the foregoing reasons;
IT IS ORDERED that Motion to Enter Stipulation and to Lift Injunction and
Stay of Proceedings (Rec. Doc. 61) filed by Paul Perrier, Sr. is DENIED.
February 22, 2016

JAY C. ZAINEY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 3 of 3