Offshore Specialty Fabricators, LLC v. Linder Oil Company, Partnership et al

Filing 36

ORDER granting 24 Motion for Summary Judgment. Within seven (7) days of entry of this Order Plaintiff shall prepare an appropriate judgment and move for entry of that judgment. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 8/28/2017. (ajn)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
OFFSHORE SPECIALTY
FABRICATORS, LLC

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO: 16-15682

LINDER OIL CO., ET AL.

SECTION: "A" (5)

ORDER
On May 5, 2017, Plaintiff Offshore Specialty Fabricators, LLC filed the instant
motion for summary judgment, which was a reurging of a prior motion for summary
judgment on its breach of contract claims against defendants Linder Oil Co., Linder
Energy Co., and Louisiana General Oil Co. In short, in 2011 Plaintiff provided work and
services to Linder Oil Co. pursuant to a contractual agreement and Linder has not, due
to financial constraints, paid the full amount due. Plaintiff filed suit to obtain the amounts
owed, plus interest, and attorney’s fees. The Court has twice previously indicated in
response to Plaintiff’s attempts to obtain summary judgment that Defendants’ arguments
in opposition to summary judgment are not persuasive. (Rec. Docs. 16 & 31).1
On May 31, 2017, the Court declined to rule on the instant motion for summary

For instance, in dismissing Plaintiff’s first motion for summary judgment without prejudice,
the Court stated: “[N]othing suggests that Plaintiff agreed to waive the contractual interest
and attorney’s fees to which it would otherwise be entitled when it agreed to a payment plan
with Linder Oil, particularly if Linder Oil should default on the repayment plan. Novation of a
contract is not to be presumed. La. Civ. Code art. 1880. Also, while Linder Energy and
Louisiana General are merely the partners of Linder Oil, Plaintiff has in fact tried to obtain
payment from the partnership but has not been successful in light of that party’s precarious
financial status. It would seem then that Plaintiff can validly look to the partners for
payment.” (Rec. Doc. 16 at 1 n.1).
1

Page 1 of 2

judgment because Defendants argued once again that Plaintiff’s motion was premature
(because discovery is in its infancy) and that Defendants wanted to take additional
discovery to oppose the motion; Plaintiff pointed out, however, that Defendants had not
taken steps to conduct the discovery that they referred to when avoiding summary
judgment the first time. The Court nonetheless sua sponte pushed the submission date
back on Plaintiff’s motion and stated: “Defendants must conduct whatever discovery
they believe necessary to defeat summary judgment so that they can file a supplement
to their opposition no later than July 28, 2017. In the absence of an appropriate
supplement sufficient to create an issue of material fact Defendants should anticipate
that the Court will grant the motion for summary judgment. The Court urges the parties
to amicably resolve this matter.” (Rec. Doc. 31 at 2).
To date, Defendants have provided no supplement to defeat summary judgment.
The email chains that were previously submitted are insufficient to create an issue of
fact as to a novation of the parties’ original contract.
Accordingly, and for the foregoing reasons;
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for Summary Judgment (Rec. Doc. 24) filed
by Plaintiff Offshore Specialty Fabricators, LLC is GRANTED. Within seven (7) days of
entry of this Order Plaintiff shall prepare an appropriate judgment and move for entry of
that judgment.
August 28, 2017
_______________________________
JAY C. ZAINEY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 2 of 2