Associated Terminals of St. Bernard, LLC v. Potential Shipping HK Co. Ltd. et al
Filing
75
ORDER AND REASONS denying 61 Motion for Leave to File Cross Claim. Signed by Magistrate Judge Janis van Meerveld on 12/14/2017. (ajn)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
ASSOCIATED TERMINALS
BERNARD, LLC
OF
ST. *
*
*
VERSUS
*
*
POTENTIAL SHIPPING HK CO., ET AL.
*
*
*
************************************ *
CIVIL ACTION NO. 17-5109
SECTION: “I”(1)
JUDGE LANCE M. AFRICK
MAGISTRATE JUDGE
JANIS VAN MEERVELD
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is the Motion for Leave to File Cross-Claim filed by intervenor Oakley
Barge Line, Inc. (“Oakley”). (Rec. Doc. 61). Oral argument was held on December 13, 2017. For
the following reasons, the Motion is DENIED.
Background
This lawsuit arises out of a May 19, 2017, incident when the M/V UNISON POWER was
being offloaded at the Chalmette Midstream Buoys. Associated Terminals of St. Bernard, LLC
(“Associated Terminals”) was acting as stevedore and its operator was operating the fixed crane
aboard the M/V UNISON POWER to unload cargo from the vessel to Oakley’s Barge ESV-101B.
Without warning, the main hoist cable of the crane failed, causing the cargo of steel wire coils as
well as block and tackle to fall onto the barge. Associated Terminals alleges it sustained damage
to its spreader bar, Oakley alleges its barge was damaged, and intervenor Jamaal Ford alleges
personal injuries (it appears that three other individuals were injured during the incident, but they
have not joined this lawsuit). Intervenor American Longshore Mutual Association (“ALMA”)
1
provided insurance to the employers of the injured individuals and has joined this action to recover
the amounts it has paid in indemnity and medical benefits.
Associated Terminals filed this action against the M/V UNISON POWER, in rem, and the
vessel’s owner Potential Shipping HK Co., Ltd. (“Potential”) on May 22, 2017 (Potential and M/V
UNISON POWER are hereinafter referred to as “Defendants”). Associated Terminals argues that
the poor condition of the vessel’s crane wires are to blame for the incident. Oakley, ALMA, and
Mr. Ford intervened promptly thereafter, asserting claims only against Defendants. Defendants
answered on July 12, 2017, and counterclaimed against Associated Terminals arguing that
Associated Terminals is responsible because the negligence, fault, or inattention to duty of
Associated Terminals and its stevedores caused the incident. Oakley, ALMA, and Mr. Ford never
asserted any claims against Associated Terminals. The deadline to amend pleadings passed on
September 7, 2017, and the trial is set to begin on February 20, 2018.
Oakley now seeks to amend its pleadings to file a cross-claim against Associated
Terminals. Oakley admits that “there has been insufficient discovery to determine whether
Associated Terminals has any liability for this incident.” Although the discovery deadline is
December 15, 2017, Oakley insists that no additional discovery and no trial continuance will be
required if its cross-claim is permitted. It explains that it delayed in filing this cross-claim because
it was attempting the resolve the matter directly with the Defendants.
Associated Terminals opposes the motion. It insists that Oakley’s explanation for its failure
to previously allege a cross-claim is not an explanation at all because it does not show any diligence
on Oakley’s part. It points out that there is no evidence of any liability of Associated Terminals.
And it also points out that Oakley has received security for its claim from the Defendants’
Protection and Indemnity Insurance Club (in the amount of up to $250,000). It argues that because
2
the parties responsible for the incident will be liable jointly and severally under maritime law, even
if Associated Terminals were jointly liable, Oakley would be able to recover fully from the
Defendants as long as some fault is attributable to them. Associated Terminals insists it would be
prejudiced if the amendment is allowed because the deadline to complete discovery has almost
passed and it would not have time to discover Oakley’s theory of liability against Associated
Terminals, nor to defend against Oakley’s claimed damages (of approximately $51,000).
Law and Analysis
1. Standard for Amending Pleadings
Where the court ordered deadline for amending pleadings has passed, that schedule “may
be modified” to allow for additional amendments “only for good cause and with the judge’s
consent.” Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 16(b)(2); see S&W Enterprises, L.L.C. v. SouthTrust Bank of
Alabama, NA, 315 F.3d 533, 536 (5th Cir. 2003) (“We take this opportunity to make clear that
Rule 16(b) governs amendment of pleadings after a scheduling order deadline has expired.”).
When determining whether the movant has shown good cause, the Court considers “(1) the
explanation for the failure to [timely move for leave to amend]; (2) the importance of the
[amendment]; (3) potential prejudice in allowing the [amendment]; and (4) the availability of a
continuance to cure such prejudice.’ ” S&W Enterprises, 315 F.3d at 536 (quoting Reliance Ins.
Co. v. Louisiana Land & Expl. Co., 110 F.3d 253, 257 (5th Cir. 1997)) (alterations in original).
2. Oakley’s Proposed Cross Claim
Considering the four factors, the Court finds that Oakley has failed to establish good cause
to permit the filing of a cross claim against Associated Terminals. First, Oakley’s delay is not
justifiable under the circumstances. Oakley says that it was engaged in settlement discussions with
3
the Defendants and did not wish to incur the expense of filing a claim against Associated
Terminals. But this explanation seems half-hearted since the settlement discussions did not prevent
it from intervening to assert a claim against the Defendants.
Second, the Court finds that the proposed amendment is of little importance since Oakley
itself admits it has no evidence to support a claim against Associated Terminals. Moreover, there
is no dispute that to the extent there is fault attributable to both the Defendants and Associated
Terminals, they will be jointly and severally liable and Oakley will be able to recover its entire
judgment against the Defendants. And as to that potential recovery, Oakley has received security
from Defendants’ P&I Club.
Finally, the Court finds that Associated Terminals would suffer prejudice by the allowance
of this amendment because at the least, Associated Terminals would need to conduct discovery
into the quantum of damages claimed by Oakley. Counsel for Oakley stated that no additional
discovery would be required regarding Associated Terminal’s potential liability or Oakley’s
theories as to such liability because it did not intend to present any evidence against Associated
Terminals and would simply rely on the Defendants to do so. But this does not mean that
Associated Terminals will not want to conduct further discovery into defenses it might be able to
assert against Oakley’s claim. The discovery deadline will pass in one day, and trial is set to begin
in about two months. Allowing the amendment now would prejudice Associated Terminals 1 and,
in light of the minimal importance of the amendment and the lack of a justifiable explanation for
the delay, the Court finds that Oakley has failed to establish good cause for the filing of its cross
claim at this time.
1
While a continuance would cure this prejudice, the Court finds that a continuance is not called for in this case.
4
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Motion for Leave to File Cross Claim (Rec. Doc. 61) is
DENIED.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 14th day of December, 2017.
Janis van Meerveld
United States Magistrate 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?