Mays v. C-Dive, L.L.C. et al
Filing
135
ORDER AND REASONS denying 130 MOTION to Certify a Judgment as Final. For reasons set forth in document, the Motion is DENIED. Signed by Judge Jane Triche Milazzo on 8/9/2018. (Reference: All Cases)(sa)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
JASON MAYS
CIVIL ACTION
NO: 16-13139
C/W: 16-13318, 16-13952,
16-13951, 17-668
RE: all
VERSUS
C-DIVE LLC ET AL.
SECTION “H” (5)
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is C-Dive LLC (“C-Dive”), Catlin Insurance Company
(“Catlin”), and New York Marine and General Insurance Company (“New York
Marine”)’s Motion to Certify a Judgment as Final (Doc. 130). For the following
reasons, the Motion is DENIED.
BACKGROUND
This is a consolidated action arising from a pipeline explosion. The
remaining plaintiff, Adam Zima, 1 alleges that he was injured while working
for C-Dive aboard its vessel, the DSV MS KERCI. The crew of the DSV MS
KERCI was charged with abandoning a pipeline owned by Gulf South Pipeline
Company, LP (“Gulf South”) on the seabed of the Gulf of Mexico. During work
1
Plaintiffs Jason Mays, Brian Beadell, and Matthew Boyd have settled their claims in this
matter.
1
on August 26, 2015, there was a release of gas that caused an explosion and
injured Plaintiff.
In a prior order, this Court held that the Master Service Agreement
between C-Dive and Gulf South required C-Dive to make Gulf South an
additional insured on C-Dive’s comprehensive general liability policies issued
by Catlin and New York Marine, triggering coverage for Gulf South via
automatic additional insured clauses in those policies. 2 C-Dive, Catlin, and
New York Marine (“Movants”) now ask this Court to certify that ruling as a
partial final judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), allowing
Movants to seek appellate review.
LAW AND ANALYSIS
Rule 54(b) states that:
When an action presents more than one claim for relief—whether
as a claim, counterclaim, crossclaim, or third-party claim—or
when multiple parties are involved, the court may direct entry of
a final judgment as to one or more, but fewer than all, claims or
parties only if the court expressly determines that there is no just
reason for delay.
According to the Fifth Circuit, “[o]ne of the primary policies behind requiring
a justification for Rule 54(b) certification is to avoid piecemeal appeals.” 3 Rule
54(b) judgments are not favored and should be awarded only when necessary
to avoid injustice. 4 “A district court should grant certification [in a Rule 54(b)
case] only when there exists some danger of hardship or injustice through delay
which would be alleviated by immediate appeal; it should not be entered
routinely as a courtesy to counsel.” 5 The threshold inquiry for this Court, then,
Doc. 124.
PYCA Indus., Inc. v. Harrison Cnty. Waste Mgmt., 81 F.3d 1412, 1421 (5th Cir. 1996).
4 Id.
5 Id. (citing Ansam Assocs., Inc. v. Cola Petroleum, Ltd., 760 F.2d 442, 445 (2d Cir. 1985)).
2
3
2
is whether “there is no just reason for delay.” 6 This determination is within the
sound discretion of the district court. 7 In making this determination, the
district court must weigh “the inconvenience and costs of piecemeal review”
against “the danger of denying justice by delay.” 8
Here, Movants have failed to establish a hardship or injustice that would
result from waiting for appellate review after this matter has reached final
judgment. Certification at this stage would result in piecemeal litigation. Since
the Movants filed this Motion, this Court has made additional rulings that
affect the relationship between Movants and Gulf South. Specifically, this
Court recently held that the contract between C-Dive and Gulf South was a
maritime contract, and therefore state anti-indemnification laws do not apply. 9
An appeal only of the determination of additional insured status would not
allow the appellate court to address these issues that equally affect Movants’
legal obligations. In addition, an appeal at this time will not avoid the necessity
of a trial to determine liability between C-Dive and Gulf South, as well as
Zima’s damages. Accordingly, this Court finds that there is just reason for
delay.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Motion is DENIED.
New Orleans, Louisiana this 9th day of August, 2018.
See Ackerman v. FDIC, 973 F.2d 1221, 1224 (5th Cir. 1992).
Id.
8 Road Sprinkler Fitters Local Union v. Cont’l Sprinkler Co., 967 F.2d 145, 148 (5th Cir.
1992) (quoting Dickinson v. Petroleum Conversion Corp., 338 U.S. 507, 511 (1950)).
9 Doc. 134.
6
7
3
____________________________________
JANE TRICHE MILAZZO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?