Lee v. Offshore Logistical & Transports, LLC

Filing 12

ORDER AND REASONS granting 6 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. Plaintiffs claims for punitive damages for negligence and unseaworthiness under the Jones Act and general maritime law are hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. This Order does not impact Plaintiffs claim for punitive damages for any alleged arbitrary and unreasonable failure of Defendant to pay maintenance and cure benefits. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
ELWOOD LEE,
Plaintiff

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO. 15-2528

OFFSHORE LOGISTICAL AND
TRANSPORTS L.L.C.,
Defendant

SECTION: “E” (2)

ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s punitive damages
claims relating to negligence and unseaworthiness pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 1
BACKGROUND
This is a maritime personal injury case. Plaintiff Elwood Lee (“Plaintiff”) filed a
complaint on July 10, 2015, pursuant to the Jones Act 2 and the general maritime law.3
Plaintiff alleges that, while aboard the M/V Balty on or about July 20, 2014, Plaintiff
“experienced an accident” resulting in “serious painful injuries” to his knee and other
parts of his body. 4 The complaint asserts that the M/V Balty was owned, operated, and/or
controlled by Defendant Offshore Logistical and Transports L.L.C. (“Defendant”) and that
Plaintiff was an employee of Defendant at the time of the accident. 5 Plaintiff brings claims
for negligence and unseaworthiness and “specifically alleges a claim for punitive damages
under the general maritime law.” 6

R. Doc. 6.
46 U.S.C. § 30104.
3 R. Doc. 1.
4 Id. at ¶¶ III–V.
5 Id.
6 R. Doc. 1 at ¶ XII.
1

2

1

Defendant filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) on September 25,
2015, 7 arguing that Plaintiff cannot recover punitive damages under the Jones Act or the
general maritime law. 8 Plaintiff filed a response to the motion to dismiss on October 12,
2015, requesting that, “should the Court agree to dismiss claims for punitive damages for
unseaworthiness, . . . that particular claim be dismissed without prejudice.” 9 Defendant
filed a surreply on November 23, 2015. 10
STANDARD OF LAW
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) provides for the dismissal of a claim if the
claimant fails to set forth factual allegations in support of the claim that would entitle the
claimant to relief. 11 Those “‘[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief
above the speculative level.’” 12 “To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain
sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face.’” 13 “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that
allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
misconduct alleged.” 14 In considering a motion to dismiss, the Court must accept all wellpleaded facts as true and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving
party. 15 “[O]nly a complaint that states a plausible claim for relief survives a motion to
dismiss.” 16

R. Doc. 6.
See R. Doc. 6-1 at 3. The motion to dismiss “does not seek at this time to dismiss” the claim for punitive
damages for any alleged arbitrary or unreasonable failure of Defendant to pay maintenance and cure
benefits. See id.
9 R. Doc. 7.
10 R. Doc. 11.
11 See Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007); see also Cuvillier v. Taylor, 503 F.3d 397, 401
(5th Cir. 2007).
12 Gonzalez v. Kay, 577 F.3d 600, 603 (5th Cir. 2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).
13 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570).
14 Id.
15 Lormand v. U.S. Unwired, Inc., 565 F.3d 228, 232 (5th Cir. 2009).
16 Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
7

8

2

DISCUSSION
Defendant argues in its motion to dismiss that the Fifth Circuit’s decision in
McBride v. Estis Well Service, Inc. 17 is dispositive of this issue. In McBride, the Fifth
Circuit, sitting en banc, cited to and relied on Miles v. Apex Marine Corp., 18 “which holds
that the Jones Act limits a seaman’s recovery to pecuniary losses where liability is
predicated on the Jones Act or unseaworthiness.” 19 The Fifth Circuit in McBride noted
that “[b]ecause punitive damages are non-pecuniary losses,” they are not recoverable
under the Jones Act or the general maritime law. 20
Plaintiff concedes in its response that the Fifth Circuit “has stated that punitive
damages are not available under the general maritime law in its latest decision in
McBride.” 21 Plaintiff requests that the claims for punitive damages be dismissed without
prejudice, “allowing him to refile such claims if McBride is reversed by the Supreme Court
at a later date and while this case is pending.” 22 The Supreme Court, however, denied the
petition for writ of certiorari in McBride on May 18, 2015. 23
In Collins v. A.B.C. Marine Towing, L.L.C., 24 another Section of this Court
concluded that punitive damages are available under general maritime law against a nonemployer third party. That court declined to follow the Fifth Circuit’s decision in
Scarborough v. Clemco Industries, which held, in line with Miles and McBride, that a
seaman may not recover punitive damages against either his employer or a nonemployer. 25 The court in Collins noted that, since the Scarborough decision in 2004, the
768 F.3d 382 (5th Cir. 2014) (en banc).
498 U.S. 19 (1990).
19 Id. at 384, 388.
20 Id.
21 R. Doc. 7 at 2.
22 Id.
23 See McBride v. Estis Well Serv., L.L.C., 135 S. Ct. 2310 (2015).
24 No. 14-1900, 2015 WL 5254710 (E.D. La. Sept. 9, 2015).
25 Scarborough v. Clemco Indus., 391 F.3d 660, 668 (5th Cir. 2004).
17

18

3

Supreme Court has held—in Atlantic Sounding Co. v. Townsend—that a seaman can
recover punitive damages for an employer’s arbitrary withholding of maintenance and
cure. 26 Thus, the Collins court concluded that the Supreme Court effectively “call[ed] into
question the legal reasoning and conclusions espoused in Scarborough” and that,
consequently, Scarborough had been implicitly overruled. 27 As a result, the Collins court
found, in the context of a seaman’s claims against a non-employer third party where the
Jones Act is not implicated, the seaman can recover punitive damages. 28
However, as even Collins recognizes, the Townsend decision is specific to the
maintenance-and-cure context and does not address whether punitive damages are
available for claims of unseaworthiness. 29 In fact, the Townsend Court took pains to
distinguish maintenance and cure, for which it concluded punitive damages are available,
from a seaman’s remedies for negligence and unseaworthiness, for which punitive
damages are generally not available under Miles, Scarborough, and McBride. 30 As other
courts in this district have recognized, although Townsend may give hope to seamen
wishing to obtain punitive damages for unseaworthiness claims against their employers
and non-employers, “this Court cannot assume the Fifth Circuit has changed its position
on personal injury claims falling outside the scope of Townsend.” 31 Further, the Court
notes that the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Scarborough, which held that a seaman may not

26 See Atlantic Sounding Co. v. Townsend, 557 U.S. 404, 424–25 (2009); Collins, 2015 WL 5254710, at
*3–4.
27 Collins, 2015 WL 5254710, at *5.
28 Id. at *5–6.
29 Id. at *3. See also Townsend, 557 U.S. at 419–21.
30 Townsend, 557 U.S. at 407.
31 Bloodsaw v. Diamond Offshore Mgmt. Co., No. 10-4163, 2013 WL 5339207, at *1 (E.D. La. Aug. 19, 2013).
See also In re International Marine, No. 12-358, 2013 WL 3293677, at *9 (E.D. La. June 28, 2013); O’Quain
v. Shell Offshore, Inc., No. 2:12-cv-01693, 2013 WL 149467, at *4 (E.D. La. Jan. 14, 2013); In re Oil Spill by
the Oil Rig “Deepwater Horizon” in the Gulf of Mexico, on April 20, 2010, MDL No. 2179, 2011 WL
4575696, at *11 (E.D. La. Sept. 30, 2011); Wilson v. Noble Drilling Corp., No. 08-4940, 2009 WL 9139586,
at *2–3 (E.D. La. Aug. 12, 2009).

4

recover punitive damages against either his employer or a non-employer, is binding on
this Court and has never been overruled. As a result, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s
punitive damages claims relating to negligence and unseaworthiness are not plausible
claims for relief in light of binding Fifth Circuit precedent.
CONCLUSION
IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s
claims for punitive damages for negligence and unseaworthiness under the Jones Act and
general maritime law are hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. This Order does
not impact Plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages for any alleged arbitrary and
unreasonable failure of Defendant to pay maintenance and cure benefits. 32
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 24th day of November, 2015.
_____________ ________ _________
SUSIE MORGAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

32

See supra note 8.

5