Wiltz v. M-I LLC et al
Filing
38
ORDER AND REASONS granting 15 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. Party M-I LLC dismissed without prejudice. Signed by Chief Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt on 12/27/2017. (sa)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
GERALD WILTZ
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NO. 17-4943
M-I L.L.C., ROWAN COMPANIES, INC.
COBALT INTERNATIONAL ENERGY,
L.P., AND HALLIBURTON ENERGY
SERVICES, INC.
SECTION “N” (5)
ORDER AND REASONS
Presently before the Court is Defendant M-I LLC’s Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss
Punitive Damages Claim (Rec. Doc. 15), to which Plaintiff Gerald Wiltz (“Wiltz”) has filed a
memorandum in opposition (Rec. Doc. 21). Having carefully considered the supporting and
opposing submissions, the record, and the applicable law, IT IS ORDERED that the motion is
GRANTED for the reasons stated herein.
I.
BACKGROUND
The instant matter arises out of Wiltz’s personal injuries, which were allegedly sustained
after he was exposed to hydrogen sulfide aboard the drill ship M/V Deepwater Reliance
(“Reliance”) on April 7, 2016. See Rec. Doc. 1 at p. 3. Thereafter, Wiltz filed his Seaman’s
Complaint for Damages asserting claims under the Jones Act and general maritime law against:
(1) M-I LLC (“M-I”), as his Jones Act Employer; (2) Rowan Companies, Inc. (“Rowan”), as owner
of the Reliance; (3) Cobalt International Energy, L.P. (“Cobalt”), as the “leaseholder and operator
as per BSEE rules and regulations;” and (4) Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. (“Halliburton”), as
a non-employer tortfeasor. Id. In his Seaman’s Complaint for Damages, Wiltz claims that,
1
Should M-I fail to honor its maintenance and cure obligation, the plaintiff is entitled
to attorney’s fees, punitive damages, and an additional compensatory award. . .
Plaintiff specifically alleges a claim for punitive damages against the defendants
herein based upon General Maritime Law. This claim relates not only to any
arbitrary and/or unreasonable failure of defendant to pay maintenance and cure
benefits but also for any gross negligence of the defendants, or unseaworthiness of
the vessel as may be allowed under General Maritime Law.
Id. at 5. Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, M-I seeks dismissal of
Wiltz’s punitive damages claims against it as his Jones Act Employer. (Rec. Doc. 15). Specifically,
M-I argues that: (1) Wiltz, as a Jones Act seaman, cannot recover punitive damages under either
the Jones Act or general maritime law; and (2) Wiltz has failed to adequately state a claim that
M-I willfully and wantonly failed to pay him maintenance and cure. Id. Thus, M-I contends that
the punitive damages claim against it must be dismissed. Id.
In response, Wiltz notes at the outset that following McBride v. Estis Well Services, LLC,
768 F.3d 382 (5th Cir. 2014), punitive damages are no longer available to a seaman as to Jones
Act claims and negligence claims under general maritime law against his employer. (Rec. Doc. 21
at p. 1). Thus, Wiltz’s only claim for punitive damages against M-I would be for its failure to pay
him maintenance and cure. Wiltz argues that while M-I is currently paying him maintenance and
cure, there is no guarantee that such payments will continue or that disputes will not arise
concerning maintenance and cure throughout the pendency of the case. Id. at p. 2. Thus, Wiltz
postures that such claim for punitive damages for the failure to pay maintenance and cure is proper,
so M-I’s motion should be denied. Id. In the alternative, Wiltz requests that, if this Court agrees
with M-I’s argument that punitive damages are not available under the instant circumstances, then
such claim for punitive damages relevant to maintenance and cure be dismissed without prejudice.
Id.
2
II.
RULE 12(b)(6) STANDARD
In order to survive a motion to dismiss filed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure, the complaint must allege “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167
L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). “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.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (citing
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). Furthermore, the allegations within a complaint “must make relief
plausible, not merely conceivable, when taken as true.” United States ex rel. Grubbs v. Kanneganti,
565 F.3d 180, 186 (5th Cir. 2009).
Under Rule 12(b)(6), the Court “construes the complaint liberally in favor of the plaintiff,
and takes all facts pleaded in the complaint as true.” Gregson v. Zurich American Ins. Co., 322
F.3d 883, 885 (5th Cir. 2003) (citing Campbell v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 781 F.2d 440, 442 (5th
Cir. 1986)). Further, “[a]ll questions of fact and any ambiguities in the controlling substantive law
must be resolved in the plaintiff's favor.” Lewis v. Fresne, 252 F.3d 352, 357 (5th Cir. 2001).
However, this tenet is inapplicable to legal conclusions. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. A complaint is
unsatisfactory “if it tenders ‘naked assertion[s]’ devoid of further factual enhancement.” Id. (citing
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557). Legal conclusions must be supported by factual allegations. Gentilello
v. Rege, 627 F.3d 540, 544 (5th Cir. 2010) (citing Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 680).
III.
LAW AND ANALYSIS
As Wiltz has acknowledged in his response to M-I’s motion to dismiss, the only issue for
this Court to decide is whether Wiltz has properly stated a claim for punitive damages for any
alleged failure of M-I to pay maintenance and cure. Maintenance and cure are remedies under
3
general maritime law, which are “implicit in the contractual relationship between the seaman and
his employer and designed to assist in the recovery of a seaman upon injury or illness sustained
while in the service of the ship.” Pelotto v. L & N Towing Co., 604 F.2d 396, 400 (5th Cir. 1979).
Moreover, maintenance and cure are due to a seaman without regard to the negligence of the
employer or unseaworthiness of the ship. Id. (citing Aguilar v. Standard Oil Co. of N. J., 318 U.S.
724, 729, 63 S. Ct. 93, 87 L. Ed. 1107 (1943)). In Atlantic Sounding Co. v. Townsend, 557 U.S.
404, 424 (2009), the Supreme Court held that a Jones Act seaman can recover punitive damages
for an employer’s willful and wanton failure to honor its maintenance and cure obligation in
appropriate cases.
In the instant matter, Wiltz does not allege that M-I has failed to pay maintenance and cure.
Rather, Wiltz seeks to reserve his claim for punitive damages should M-I fail to honor its obligation
to pay him maintenance and cure at some point in the future. See Rec. Doc. 1 at p. 5. In support of
his claim, Wiltz argues that “while M-I may currently be paying maintenance and cure, there is
certainly no guarantee that maintenance and cure will continue or that there will be no dispute
about it during the course of this case.” (Rec. Doc. 21 at p. 2). However, the Court does not find it
appropriate to allow Wiltz to maintain a claim for punitive damages premised on the possibility
that M-I may breach its obligation to pay maintenance and cure at some unknown time in the
future. See Smith v. Basic Marine Services, Inc., 964 F.Supp.2d 597, 608 (E.D.La. 2013) (“The
record, however, confirms that Basic Marine has honored its maintenance and cure obligation; the
plaintiff is not entitled to recover for arbitrary conduct that may or may not occur in the future.”);
Campbell v. Offshore Liftboats, LLC, Civil Action No. 14-2218, 2015 WL 1280543, at *4 (E.D.La.
Mar. 20, 2015) (“Certainly, a seaman is entitled to seek punitive damage for his employer's alleged
willful and wanton disregard of its maintenance and cure obligation. . . But Campbell is not entitled
4
to recover for arbitrary conduct that he speculates, without more, may or may not occur in the
future.”). Thus, Wiltz’s claim for punitive damages against M-I, should it fail to pay him
maintenance and cure in the future, is dismissed. However, just as the Court in Smith v. Basic
Marine Services, Inc., noted, M-I must continue to pay maintenance and cure benefits until
maximum medical cure is achieved. 964 F.Supp.2d at 608. If M-I fails to fulfill such obligation,
then plaintiff may seek relief from the Court. See id.
IV.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that M-I LLC’s Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss Punitive Damages
Claim (Rec. Doc. 15) is GRANTED, and Wiltz’s claim for punitive damages against M-I is
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 27th day of December 2017.
________________________________________
KURT D. ENGELHARDT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
5
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?