Jones v. Yellow Fin Marine Services, LLC

Filing 11

ORDER AND REASONS granting 5 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Plaintiffs' claims for punitive damages under the Jones Act and the general maritime law are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Jane Triche Milazzo. (ecm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
JOHN PAUL JONES, JR.

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO: 15-692

YELLOW FIN MARINE SERVICES, LLC

SECTION: "H"(3)

ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is Defendant Yellow Fin Marine Services, LLC’s (“Yellow
Fin”) Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 5). For the following reasons,
the Motion is GRANTED, and Plaintiffs’ claims for punitive damages under the
Jones Act and the general maritime law are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff John Paul Jones, Jr. brings this action seeking damages
pursuant to the Jones Act and the general maritime law for injuries he allegedly
sustained during the course and scope of his employment aboard the M/V K
MARINE III.

Defendant moves to dismiss Plaintiff's claims for punitive

damages under the Jones Act and the general maritime law, arguing that such
1

damages are not recoverable as a matter of law.
LEGAL STANDARD
Summary judgment is appropriate "if the pleadings, depositions, answers
to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with affidavits, if any, show
that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party
is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law."1 A genuine issue of fact exists only
"if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the
nonmoving party."2
In determining whether the movant is entitled to summary judgment, the
Court views facts in the light most favorable to the non-movant and draws all
reasonable inferences in his favor.3 "If the moving party meets the initial burden
of showing that there is no genuine issue of material fact, the burden shifts to
the non-moving party to produce evidence or designate specific facts showing the
existence of a genuine issue for trial."4 Summary judgment is appropriate if the
non-movant "fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an
element essential to that party’s case."5 "In response to a properly supported
motion for summary judgment, the non-movant must identify specific evidence
in the record and articulate the manner in which that evidence supports that
1

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c) (2012).

2

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986).

3

Coleman v. Houston Indep. Sch. Dist., 113 F.3d 528 (5th Cir. 1997).

4

Engstrom v. First Nat’l Bank of Eagle Lake, 47 F.3d 1459, 1462 (5th Cir. 1995).

5

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324 (1986).

2

party’s claim, and such evidence must be sufficient to sustain a finding in favor
of the non-movant on all issues as to which the non-movant would bear the
burden of proof at trial."6 "We do not . . . in the absence of any proof, assume
that the nonmoving party could or would prove the necessary facts."7
Additionally, "[t]he mere argued existence of a factual dispute will not defeat an
otherwise properly supported motion."8
LAW AND ANALYSIS
Defendant moves to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims for punitive damages
pursuant the Jones Act and the general maritime law, in light of the recent Fifth
Circuit en banc decision in McBride v. Estis Well Service, LLC.9 McBride held
that punitive damages were not recoverable under either an unseaworthiness
claim or the Jones Act.10 Plaintiff in this case seeks punitive damages on both
his Jones Act and unseaworthiness claims. Because the Fifth Circuit has held
that such damages are unavailable as a matter of law, Plaintiff's punitive
damage claims must be dismissed.11
6

John v. Deep E. Tex. Reg. Narcotics Trafficking Task Force, 379 F.3d 293, 301 (5th Cir.
2004) (internal citations omitted).
7

Badon v. R J R Nabisco, Inc., 224 F.3d 382, 394 (5th Cir. 2000) (quoting Little v.
Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069, 1075 (5th Cir. 1994)).
8

Boudreaux v. Banctec, Inc., 366 F. Supp. 2d 425, 430 (E.D. La. 2005).

9

768 F.3d 382 (5th Cir. 2014), cert. denied, No. 14–761, 2015 WL 2340864 (U.S. May
18, 2015).
10

Id. at 384.

11

Plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages related to the alleged failure of Defendant to
pay maintenance and cure is not at issue in this Motion.

3

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s claims for
punitive damages pursuant to the Jones Act and the general maritime law are
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 15th day of May, 2015.

___________________________________
JANE TRICHE MILAZZO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4