Smith Marine Towing Corporation et al v. EPL Oil & Gas, Inc, et al

Filing 30

ORDER & REASONS that Defendants' 23 Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' retain their right to re-urge this motion after discovery has been exchanged. Signed by Judge Eldon E. Fallon. (dno)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

SMITH MARINE TOWING CORPORATION
AND KJS TOWING, INC.

VERSUS
EPL OIL & GAS, INC.,
ENERGY XXI GOM, LLC AND
ENI US OPERATING CO., INC.

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

CIVIL ACTION

NO. 15-5492
SECTION: “L” (4)

ORDER & REASONS
Before the Court is a Motion for Summary Judgment (R. Doc. 23) filed by Defendants
EPL Oil & Gas, Inc. (“EPL”), Energy XXI GOM, LLC (“Energy XXI”), and Eni US Operating
Co. Inc. (“Eni,” and collectively with EPL and Energy XXI, “Defendants”). Having reviewed
the parties’ briefs and the applicable law, the Court now issues this Order and Reasons.
I.

BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Smith Marine Towing Corporation (“Smith Marine”) provides marine towing

equipment and towing services for the oil and gas industry. (R. Doc. 1). In connection with this
work, it operates a fleet of vessels including the M/V SMITH PREDATOR, which is owned by
Plaintiff KJS Towing, Inc. (“KJS Towing”). The M/V SMITH PREDATOR worked in
conjunction with the D/B CAL DIVE PACIFIC, which requires the use of assist tugs such as the
M/V SMITH PREDATOR to maneuver and position. Specifically, work was performed in Main
Pass 72, Main Pass 244 and Ship Shoal 248. Smith Marine issued two invoices to Cal Dive in
connection with this work. Both remain unpaid. In March of 2015 Cal Dive initiated bankruptcy
proceedings in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, which are ongoing at
this time.

It is believed that contracts exist between Cal Dive and the customers for whom the D/B
CAL DIVE PACIFIC was working during this time. However, no discovery has been exchanged
and Smith Marine neither has copies of these contracts nor knows the identity of some of Cal
Dive’s customers.
On April 13, 2015, Plaintiffs filed Statements of Privilege in the mortgage records of
Plaquemines and Terrebonne Parish in connection with one of the aforementioned invoices.
Defendants were identified based upon information obtained from the U.S. Bureau of Ocean
Energy Management indicating that they were the owners, operators or lessees of oil and gas
wells in the offshore locations where the work was performed.
On October 27, 2015, Plaintiffs commenced this action by filing a complaint against the
Defendants seeking recognition of a lien pursuant to the Louisiana Oil Well Lien Act, La. Rev.
Stat. § 9:4861, et seq., (“LOWLA”) for the towing services performed by the Plaintiffs.
Alternatively, Plaintiffs asserted causes of action for unjust enrichment and as third party
beneficiaries of the contracts between Cal Dive and its customers.
To date, no discovery has been completed. Plaintiffs propounded written discovery to
Defendants, but Defendants objected to providing responses. Initial disclosures have not been
exchanged.
II.

PRESENT MOTION
Defendants move for summary judgment, arguing that Plaintiffs have no enforceable lien

pursuant to LOWLA because Plaintiffs failed to timely send notice of their statement of lien and
privilege within the time prescribed by Louisiana law. Defendants argue further that Plaintiffs
cannot recover under unjust enrichment because the law provides them with other legal remedies
and that Plaintiffs cannot establish that Defendants would be liable as third party beneficiaries

under Louisiana law. Plaintiffs argue that summary judgment is inappropriate at this early stage
in the litigation because no discovery has been exchanged. Accordingly, Plaintiffs move for
discovery pursuant to Rule 56(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
III.

LAW AND ANALYSIS
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(c)) (emphasis added); Little v. Liquid Air Corp.,
37 F.3d 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). An entry of summary judgment should be granted
only “after adequate time for discovery.” Celotex Corp., 447 U.S. at 322.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c), the moving party bears the initial burden of
“informing the district court of the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of [the
record] which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.” Celotex,
477 U.S. at 322. The opposing party may move to deny or defer the motion for summary
judgment on the grounds that additional discovery is needed to adequately respond. Federal
Rule 56(d) provides that when facts are unavailable to the nonmovant, the court may:
(1) defer considering the motion or deny it;
(2) allow time to obtain affidavits or declarations or to take discovery; or
(3) issue any other appropriate order

Additionally, Rule 56(f) permits further discovery in order “to safeguard non-moving parties
from summary judgment motions that they cannot adequately oppose.” Culwell v. City of Fort
Worth, 468 F.3d 868, 871 (5th Cir. 2006).
Considering the foregoing, Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is premature.
Initial disclosures have not been exchanged, a preliminary scheduling conference has not taken
place, and no discovery has been conducted. Plaintiffs are entitled to discovery regarding the
applicable contracts between Defendants and Cal Dive. Before the contracts and other relevant
discovery is reviewed, it is premature for this Court to make legal determinations as there may be
facts in dispute.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is
DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ retain their right to re-urge this motion
after discovery has been exchanged.