In the Matter of Marquette Transportation Gulf-Inland, LLC

Filing 62

ORDER & REASONS denying 43 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 44 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Ivan L.R. Lemelle on 11/6/2015. (mmm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
IN RE: MARQUETTE TRANSPORTATION
GULF-INLAND, LLC, AS OWNER PRO HAC
VICE OF THE M/V ST. THOMAS, OFFICIAL
NO. 1050938, FOR EXONERATION FROM OR
LIMITATION OF LIABILITY

CIVIL ACTION
NO. 14-1961
SECTION “B”(5)

ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court are Motions for Summary Judgment on Liability
filed by the Claimants-in-Limitation in this matter, the Louisiana
Department of Transportation and Development (“DOTD”) and the
Iberville Parish Council (“Iberville Parish”) (collectively, “the
Claimants”). (Rec. Docs. 43, 44).
Transportation

Gulf-Inland,

1

LLC

Limitation Plaintiff, Marquette
(“Marquette”),

has

filed

a

responsive pleading in the context of a previously granted motion,
which this Court relies on in making its decision. (Rec. Docs. 52,
57). Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the motions are DENIED as set forth more
fully below.
I.

SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD
Summary judgment is proper if the pleadings, depositions,

interrogatory

answers,

and

admissions,

together

with

any

affidavits, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material
fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter
of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. A genuine issue exists if the evidence

1

Iberville Parish’s Motion adopts the arguments of DOTD’s Motion, thus this
Court will only make reference to DOTD’s Motion.

1

would

allow

nonmovant.
(1986).

a

reasonable

jury

to

return

a

verdict

for

the

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248

Although the Court must consider the evidence with all

reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving
party, the nonmovant must produce specific facts to demonstrate
that a genuine issue exists for trial.

Webb v. Cardiothoracic

Surgery Assocs. of N. Texas, 139 F.3d 532, 536 (5th Cir. 1998).
The

moving

party

bears

the

initial

responsibility

of

informing the district court of the basis for its motion and must
point to “portions of ‘the pleadings, depositions, answers to
interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with affidavits’
which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of
material fact.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986)
(citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 56). If and when the movant carries this
burden, the nonmovant must then go beyond the pleadings and use
affidavits, depositions, interrogatory responses, admissions, or
other evidence to establish a genuine issue.

Matsushita Elec.

Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986).
Conclusory rebuttals of the pleadings are insufficient to avoid
summary judgment.

Travelers Ins. Co. v. Liljeberg Enter., Inc.,

7 F.3d 1203, 1207 (5th Cir. 1993).
II.

ANALYSIS
In

the

Motions

for

Summary

Judgment

on

Liability,

the

Claimants argue that Marquette is solely liable for the allision

2

under

general

maritime

negligence,

The

Oregon

Rule,

and

The

Pennsylvania Rule. (Rec. Doc. 43-1 at 4). Under general maritime
law, the Claimants assert that Marquette is liable and at fault
based on the negligence of Mr. Wilkes, Marquette’s captain of the
M/V St. Thomas on February 28, 2014, the day of the allision. (Rec.
Doc. 43-1 at 4). Under The Oregon Rule, the Claimants argue that
there is a presumption of fault on the moving vessel that allides
with a stationary object, a presumption which Marquette has failed
to overcome through showing by a preponderance of the evidence
that either (1) the allision was the fault of the stationary
object, (2) that the moving vessel acted with reasonable care,
and/or (3) that the allision was an unavoidable accident. (Rec.
Doc. 43-1 at 6-7).2 Under The Pennsylvania Rule, the Claimants aver
that there is a presumption that Marquette is at fault due to
alleged violations of the Inland Rules of Navigation on the part
of Mr. Wilkes. (Rec. Doc. 43-1 at 7-8).
Marquette’s Opposition to DOTD’s Motion for Consideration has
highlighted to this Court that there are genuine issues of material
fact precluding summary judgment at this stage. Specifically, Mr.
Wilkes indicated to the Coast Guard that a mechanical steering
failure caused the incident, though further investigations failed

2 For this assertion, Marquette cites two cases, citing them both as Fifth
Circuit precedent. This Court notes that one case is actually from the Louisiana
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal, but Brunet v. United Gas Pipeline Co., 15 F.3d
500, 503 (5th Cir. 1994) is instructive.

3

to reveal as much. (Rec. Doc. 52 at 2). Consequently, there is a
genuine issue of material fact as to whether the negligence of Mr.
Wilkes caused the allision, so as to hold Marquette liable under
general maritime law. Additionally, there is a genuine issue of
material fact as to whether Marquette can overcome The Oregon
presumption of liability through a preponderance of the evidence
showing that the allision was an unavoidable accident as the
steering failure, if proven, may indicate that the accident was
unavoidable. Finally, there is a genuine issue of material fact as
to whether Marquette can, with this evidence of steering failure,
prove that Mr. Wilkes’ fault was not the cause of the accident.
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the Court holds that summary
judgment is not appropriate at this juncture, but reserves the
right to consider these issues when they are presented at trial.
Accordingly,

IT

IS

ORDERED

that

the

Claimant’s

Motions

for

Summary Judgment on Liability are DENIED. In doing so, we note
that opponent's evidentiary material while raising a material
factual dispute appears to do so ever so lightly.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 6th day of November, 2015.

_________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4