Wiltz v. M-I LLC et al
Filing
71
ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Rowan Companies, Inc.'s 60 Rule 12 Motion to Dismiss Any and All Punitive Damages Claims is GRANTED and any request for punitive damages against Rowan Companies, Inc. is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by Chief Judge Nannette Jolivette Brown on 12/3/2018. (mmv)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
GERALD WILTZ
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NO. 17-4943
M-I, LLC, et al.
SECTION: “G”(5)
ORDER AND REASONS
Pending before this Court is Defendant Rowan Companies, Inc.’s (“Rowan”), “Rule 12
Motion to Dismiss Any and All Punitive Damages Claims.”1 Having considered the motion, the
memoranda in support and opposition, the record, and the applicable law, the Court will grant the
motion.
I. Background
The litigation arises out personal injuries Plaintiff Gerald Wiltz (“Plaintiff”) allegedly
sustained after he was exposed to hydrogen sulfide aboard the drill ship M/V Deepwater Reliance
(“the vessel”) on April 7, 2016.2 On May 15, 2017, Plaintiff filed a “Seaman’s Complaint for
Damages” in this Court asserting claims under the Jones Act and general maritime law against: (1)
M-I LLC (“M-I”), as his Jones Act Employer; (2) Rowan, as owner of the vessel; (3) Cobalt
International Energy, L.P. (“Cobalt”), as the “leaseholder and operator as per BSEE rules and
1
Rec. Doc. 60.
2
Rec. Doc. 1 at 3.
1
regulations;” and (4) Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. (“Halliburton”), as a non-employer
tortfeasor.3 In the complaint, Plaintiff “specifically alleges a claim for punitive damages against
the defendants [] based upon General Maritime Law” for the arbitrary and/or unreasonable failure
to pay maintenance and cure benefits, gross negligence, or unseaworthiness of the vessel.4 The
case was initially assigned to the Honorable Kurt D. Engelhardt.5
On December 27, 2017, the Court granted a motion to dismiss filed by M-I LLC,
dismissing Plaintiff’s request for punitive damages against M-I LLC without prejudice.6 The Court
found that Plaintiff could only recover punitive damages against M-I LLC, his employer, if M-I
LLC filed to pay maintenance and cure, and reserved the right of Plaintiff to seek relief from the
Court if M-I LLC fails to pay maintenance and cure.7 On January 29, 2018, the Court granted
motions to dismiss filed by Cobalt and Halliburton, and dismissed Plaintiff’s request for punitive
damages against Cobalt and Halliburton with prejudice.8 The Court found that punitive damages
are not available to a seaman against a non-employer.9
On May 18, 2018, Rowan filed the instant motion to dismiss.10 On May 21, 2018, the case
was reassigned to this Court upon the elevation of Judge Engelhardt to the United States Court of
3
Id.
4
Id. at 5.
5
Rec. Doc. 2.
6
Rec. Doc. 38.
7
Id. at 4.
8
Rec. Doc. 39.
9
Id. at 4.
10
Rec. Doc. 60.
2
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.11 On May 29, 2018, Plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion to
dismiss.12 On June 7, 2018, with leave of Court, Rowan filed a reply brief in further support of the
motion to dismiss.13
II. Parties Arguments
A.
Rowan’s Arguments in Support of the Motion to Dismiss
Rowan moves the Court to dismiss Plaintiff’s request for punitive damages pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c).14 Rowan asserts that the Fifth Circuit has specifically ruled
that punitive damages are unavailable under the Jones Act or general maritime law.15 Rowan notes
that in Atlantic Sounding, Inc. v. Townsend, the Supreme Court held that a seaman may seek
punitive damages against his employer for the willful failure to pay maintenance and cure,16 but
other district courts have found that Townsend does not extend to non-employers.17 Rowan asserts
that it “is in no different position than was Cobalt and Halliburton in moving for and obtaining the
11
Rec. Doc. 61.
12
Rec. Doc. 63.
13
Rec. Doc. 67.
14
Rec. Doc. 60-1 at 3.
15
Id. at 4 (citing McBride v. Estis Well Service, LLC, 768 F.3d 382 (5th Cir. 2014); Scarborough v. Clemco
Industries, 391 F.3d 660 (5th Cir. 2004)).
16
Id. at 5 (citing 129 S.Ct. 2561 (2009)).
17
Id. at 5–6 (citing Melancon v. Gaubert Oil Co., Inc., 17-2905, 2017 WL 3438346, at *2 (E.D. La. Aug. 10,
2017) (Engelhardt, J.); Wade v. Clemco Industries Corp., No. 16-502, 2017 WL 434425, *5 (E.D. La. Feb. 1, 2017)
(Fallon, J.); Rinehart v. Nat'l Oilwell Varco, L.P., No. 15-6266, 2017 WL 1407699, at *4 (E.D. La. Apr. 20, 2017)
(Fallon, J.); Bell v. Foster Wheeler Energy Corp., No. 15-6394, 2017 WL 889074, at *4 (E.D. La. Mar. 6, 2017)
(Africk, J.); Rockett v. Belle Chasse Marine Transp., LLC, No. 17-229, 2017 WL 2226319, at *4 (E.D. La. May 22,
2017) (Lemmon, J.); Schutt v. Alliance Marine Services LP, No. 16-15733, 2017 WL 2313199, *2 (E.D. La. May 26,
2017) (Lemelle, J.)).
3
dismissal of any and all punitive damage clams.”18 Accordingly, Rowan asserts that any request
against Rowan for punitive damages should similarly be dismissed with prejudice.19
B.
Plaintiff’s Arguments in Opposition to the Motion
In opposition, Plaintiff argues that the law is not settled on the issue of whether punitive
damages are available to a seaman against non-employer defendants under general maritime law.20
Plaintiff notes that other courts in this district have found that Townsend overruled earlier Fifth
Circuit precedent holding that a seaman may not recover punitive damages against a nonemployer.21 Plaintiff contends that there is no statute governing claims against non-employer
tortfeasors under general maritime law, and therefore, there should be no limitation on the damages
which would normally be available under general maritime law.22 Furthermore, Plaintiff notes that
other district courts have allowed punitive damages in similar cases.23
Finally, Plaintiff asserts that the cases cited by Rowan are not controlling in this case.24
Plaintiff contends that the Fifth Circuit’s holding in McBride v. Estis Well Service does not address
18
Id. at 6.
19
Id.
20
Rec. Doc. 63 at 1.
21
Id. at 3 (citing Collins v. A.B.C. Marine Towing, LLC, No. 14-1900, 2015 WL 5254710 (E.D. La. Sept. 9,
2015) (Fallon, J.); Hume v. Consolidated Grain & Barge, Inc., No. 15-935, 2016 WL 1089349 (E.D. La. Mar. 21,
2016) (Zainey, J.)).
22
Id. at 6.
23
Id. at 7 (citing Mussa v. Cleveland Tankers, 802 F.Supp. 84 (E.D. Mich. 1992); Wagner v. Kona Blue
Water Farms, No. 09-600, 2010 WL 3566731 (D. Hi. Sept. 13, 2010) (Seabright, J.)).
24
Id. at 8.
4
claims against a non-employer.25 Furthermore, Plaintiff argues that the Fifth Circuit’s holding in
Scarborough v. Clemco Industries, which limited the availability of punitive damages against nonemployer defendants under general maritime law, only applies to wrongful death cases.26 Plaintiff
asserts that this issue should be interpreted in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Townsend,
which he contends “suggests that if a seaman is now allowed to pursue punitive damages against
his employer under his general maritime law maintenance and cure claim, then he certainly should
be allowed to invoke and pursue his centuries old claim for punitive damages against a third party
under general maritime law.”27 For these reasons, Plaintiff contends that the motion to dismiss
should be denied.28
C.
Rowan’s Arguments in Further Support of the Motion to Dismiss
In reply, Rowan notes that Plaintiff’s opposition to Rowan’s motion asserts the same
position and cites the same jurisprudence that Judge Engelhardt previously rejected when he
granted the motions to dismiss filed in this case by Cobalt and Halliburton.29 Because Plaintiff’s
demand for punitive damages against Cobalt and Halliburton have already been dismissed with
prejudice, Rowan asserts it would be incongruous to permit Plaintiff’s request for punitive
damages to survive against Rowan, as Rowan, Cobalt, and Halliburton are all non-employer third
25
Id. (citing 768 F.3d at 382).
26
Id. (citing 391 F.3d at 660).
27
Id. at 10 (citing 557 U.S. at 419).
28
Id.
29
Rec. Doc. 67 at 1–2.
5
party defendants.30 Therefore, even assuming all of the allegations contained in the Complaint are
true, Rowan argues that the existing law does not afford Plaintiff a remedy for punitive damages
against Rowan.31
III. Legal Standard
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) provides that “[a]fter the pleadings are closed—but
early enough not to delay trial—a party may move for judgment on the pleadings.”32 “A motion
brought pursuant to [Rule] 12(c) is designed to dispose of cases where the material facts are not in
dispute and a judgment on the merits can be rendered by looking to the substance of the pleadings
and any judicially noticed facts.”33 “The central issue is whether, in the light most favorable to the
plaintiff, the complaint states a valid claim for relief.”34 On a 12(c) motion, “[p]leadings should be
construed liberally,” and judgment is “appropriate only if there are no disputed issues of fact and
only questions of law remain.”35 Moreover, the Court “may dismiss a claim when it is clear that
the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim that would entitle him to relief.”36 In
30
Id. at 3.
31
Id. at 4.
32
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c).
33
Great Plains Trust Co. v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co., 313 F.3d 305, 312 (5th Cir.2002) (internal
citations omitted).
34
Id. (internal citations omitted).
35
Id. (internal citations omitted).
36
Id.
6
lieu of dismissal on a motion for judgement on the pleadings, a district court may grant a plaintiff
leave to amend the complaint.37
IV. Analysis
Rowan seeks dismissal of Plaintiff’s request for punitive damages because it contends that
existing law does not afford Plaintiff a remedy for punitive damages against Rowan, a nonemployer defendant.38 In opposition, Plaintiff argues that the request for punitive damages should
not be dismissed because the law is not settled on the issue of whether punitive damages are
available to a seaman against non-employer defendants under general maritime law.39
In Miles v. Apex Marine Corp., the Supreme Court held that the survivors of a Jones Act
seaman may not recover non-pecuniary damages from the seaman’s employer under general
maritime law.40 The Court noted that the Jones Act and the Death on the High Seas Act
(“DOHSA”) do not allow recovery for loss of society or lost future earnings.41 The Court found
that in enacting the Jones Act and DOHSA, Congress had established a “uniform plan of maritime
tort law,”42 and it “restore[d] a uniform rule applicable to all actions for the wrongful death of a
seaman, whether under DOHSA, the Jones Act, or general maritime law.”43 Therefore, the Court
37
Dueling v. Devon Energy Corp., 623 F. App'x 127 (5th Cir. 2015).
38
Rec. Doc. 60.
39
Rec. Doc. 63 at 1.
40
498 U.S. 19, 31–33 (1990).
41
Id. at 31–32.
42
Id. at 37.
43
Id. at 33.
7
explained that “it would be inconsistent with this Court’s place in the constitutional scheme to
sanction more expansive remedies for the judicially created unseaworthiness cause of action, in
which liability is without fault, than Congress has allowed in cases of death resulting from
negligence.”44
In Guevara v. Maritime Overseas Corporation, the Fifth Circuit applied the “damages
uniformity principle” articulated by the Supreme Court in Miles to preclude an injured Jones Act
seaman from recovering punitive damages for his employer’s willful disregard of its obligation to
pay maintenance and cure under general maritime law.45 In Scarborough v. Clemco Industries, the
Fifth Circuit again invoked the uniformity principle and held that neither a Jones Act seaman nor
his survivors can recover non-pecuniary damages from a non-employer under general maritime
law.46
However, in Atlantic Sounding Co. v. Townsend, the Supreme Court overruled Guevara
and 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.47 Notably, the Court recognized that
“[t]he reasoning of Miles remains sound,” but ultimately determined that Townsend was
distinguishable.48 Unlike the wrongful death claim and damages addressed in Miles, the Court
noted that general maritime law had recognized a claim for maintenance and cure and the remedy
44
Id. at 20.
45
59 F.3d 1496, 1513 (5th Cir. 1995).
46
391 F.3d 660, 668 (5th Cir. 2004).
47
557 U.S. 404, 424 (2009).
48
Id. at 420.
8
of punitive damages prior to the passage of the Jones Act, and the Jones Act addresses neither
claim nor remedy.49 Therefore, the Court concluded that it is “possible to adhere to the traditional
understanding of maritime actions and remedies without abridging or violating the Jones Act;
unlike wrongful-death actions, this traditional understanding is not a matter to which ‘Congress
has spoken directly.’”50
Following Townsend, it was unclear whether punitive damages were recoverable under
general maritime law for other types of claims or were limited to maintenance and cure claims.51
In McBride v. Estis Well Serv., LLC, the Fifth Circuit initially held that punitive damages were
available when a seaman’s personal injury or wrongful death claim was brought under general
maritime law, effectively extending the Supreme Court’s holding in Townsend to non-maintenance
and cure claims.52 However, on rehearing en banc, the Fifth Circuit reversed the panel, holding
that neither an injured seaman nor his survivors can recover punitive damages from an employer
for negligence under the Jones Act or unseaworthiness under general maritime law.53 The Fifth
Circuit noted that when Congress enacted the Jones Act, it incorporated the Federal Employers’
Liability Act’s prohibition on non-pecuniary damages.54 Further, the Fifth Circuit reasoned that it
49
Id.
50
Id. at 420–21.
51
See Stevan C. Dittman, Amiable or Merry? An Update on Maritime Punitive Damages, 89 Tul. L. Rev.
1059, 1089-1101 (2015) (“Since Townsend, the courts have divided with respect to the impact of Townsend in
situations not directly covered by the factual situation in Miles.”)
52
731 F.3d 505 (5th Cir. 2013), rev’d en banc, 768 F.3d 382 (5th Cir. 2014).
53
McBride v. Estis Well Serv., LLC, 768 F.3d 382, 391 (5th Cir. 2014), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 2310 (2015).
54
Id. at 385–86.
9
could not “supplement the statute and allow more expansive damages” for an action brought under
general maritime law than Congress had allowed under the Jones Act.55
Following McBride, numerous district judges in the Eastern District of Louisiana have
found that a plaintiff cannot recover punitive damages against a non-employer defendant under
general maritime law in both personal injury and wrongful death cases.56 Plaintiff cites two
decisions by other district judges in the Eastern District of Louisiana, who allowed a punitive
damages claim to proceed against a non-employer defendant, because they found that Townsend
overruled earlier Fifth Circuit precedent holding that a seaman may not recover punitive damages
against a non-employer.57 Notably, Collins v. A.B.C. Marine Towing,58 one of the cases cited by
Plaintiff, was decided by the Honorable Eldon Fallon, who later reversed course stating, “It is now
clear in the Fifth Circuit that under both the Jones Act and general maritime law, a seaman’s claim
55
Id. at 387 (quoting Miles, 498 U.S. at 31).
56
See Wade v. Clemco Industries Corp., No. 16-502, 2017 WL 434425, at *5 (E.D. La. Feb. 1, 2017) (Fallon,
J.) (“[T]he Fifth Circuit has now made it clear that under the Jones Act and general maritime law, a seaman’s damages
against both employers and non-employers are limited to pecuniary losses.”); Rinehart v. Nat'l Oilwell Varco, L.P.,
No. 15-6266, 2017 WL 1407699, at *4 (E.D. La. Apr. 20, 2017) (Fallon, J.) (“It is now clear in the Fifth Circuit that
under both the Jones Act and general maritime law, a seaman’s claim against both employers and non-employers does
not include punitive damages.”); Bell v. Foster Wheeler Energy Corp., No. 15-6394, 2017 WL 889074, at *4 (E.D.
La. Mar. 6, 2017) (Africk, J.) (holding that a seaman’s representative cannot recover non-pecuniary damages in a
wrongful death action under general maritime law); Rockett v. Belle Chasse Marine Transp., LLC, No. 17-229, 2017
WL 2226319, at *4 (E.D. La. May 22, 2017) (Lemmon, J.) (refusing to limit Scarborough, McBride, and Wade to
wrongful death cases); Schutt v. Alliance Marine Services LP, No. 16-15733, 2017 WL 2313199, *2 (E.D. La. May
26, 2017) (Lemelle, J.) (same); Melancon v. Gaubert Oil Co., Inc., 17-2905, 2017 WL 3438346, at *3 (E.D. La. Aug.
10, 2017) (Engelhardt, J.) (holding that Miles and its progeny, particularly the Fifth Circuit’s decisions in Scarborough
and McBride, precluded the plaintiff from recovering non-pecuniary damages against a non-employer defendant under
general maritime law).
57
Collins v. A.B.C. Marine Towing, LLC, No. 14-1900, 2015 WL 5254710 (E.D. La. Sept. 9, 2015) (Fallon,
J.); Hume v. Consolidated Grain & Barge, Inc., No. 15-935, 2016 WL 1089349 (E.D. La. Mar. 21, 2016) (Zainey, J.).
58
2015 WL 5254710.
10
against both employers and non-employers does not include punitive damages.”59 Furthermore,
the other case cited by Plaintiff simply adopted the reasoning set forth by Judge Fallon in Collins.
Therefore, although decisions of other district judges are not binding on this Court, it appears that
all of the judges in this district to consider this issue are now united in holding that a seaman cannot
recover punitive damages from a non-employer defendant under general maritime law.
In Scarborough, the Fifth Circuit decided the exact issue presented in the instant motion.
There, the Fifth Circuit invoked the uniformity principle set forth by the Supreme Court in Miles
and held that neither a Jones Act seaman nor his survivors can recover non-pecuniary damages
from a non-employer under general maritime law.60 Plaintiff contends that the holding of
Scarborough has been called into question by the Supreme Court in Townsend. However,
following Townsend, the Fifth Circuit reaffirmed the uniformity principle set forth by the Supreme
Court in Miles, and held that neither an injured seaman nor his survivors can recover punitive
damages from an employer under general maritime law.61 Considering this binding precedent, the
Court finds that Plaintiff is precluded from recovering non-pecuniary damages against Rowan
under general maritime law.
59
Rinehart, 2017 WL 1407699, at *4.
60
391 F.3d at 668.
61
McBride, 768 F.3d at 391.
11
V. Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that there are no issues of fact in dispute, and
Rowan is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, dismissing Plaintiff’s request for punitive
damages. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Rowan Companies, Inc.’s “Rule 12 Motion
to Dismiss Any and All Punitive Damages Claims”62 is GRANTED and any request for punitive
damages against Rowan Companies, Inc. is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
3rd
NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA, this ______ day of December, 2018.
__________________________________
NANNETTE JOLIVETTE BROWN
CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
62
Rec. Doc. 60.
12
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?