Baca Rueda v. Consolidated Grain & Barge, Inc.
Filing
23
ORDER AND REASONS - IT IS ORDERED that Consolidated Grain & Barge, Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 18 ) is GRANTED, and plaintiff's claims against it are DISMISSED. Signed by Judge Mary Ann Vial Lemmon on 9/5/2018. (sa)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
AMADA YANETH BACA RUEDA AS
TUTRIX OF MARLEN CAROLINA
ZABALA HERNANDEZ
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NO: 17-10326
CONSOLIDATED GRAIN & BARGE,
INC.
SECTION: "S" (4)
ORDER AND REASONS
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Consolidated Grain & Barge, Inc.'s Motion for Summary
Judgment (Doc. #15) is GRANTED, and plaintiff's claims against it are DISMISSED.
BACKGROUND
This matter is before the court on a motion for summary judgment filed by defendant,
Consolidated Grain & Barge, Inc. ("CGB").
On June 25, 2016, Braulio Reina, who was employed by Trinity Trading Group and assigned
to work aboard the M/V JUN JIE, was crushed to death when metal fell from a crane during cargo
operations. Plaintiff, Amada Yaneth Baca Rueda, as tutrix of Marlen Carolina Zabala Hernandez,
filed this action against CGB alleging that CGB employed the crane operator that was unloading the
bags of metal from the M/V JUN JIE, and that CGB is liable under maritime law for negligence in
hiring, training and supervising the crane operator, and failing to maintain and operate the crane in
a safe manner. CGB filed the instant motion for summary judgment arguing that it cannot be held
liable for Reina's death because it was not associated in any way with the crane from which the
metal fell or the crane operator who was working the crane.
ANALYSIS
I.
Summary Judgment Standard
Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that the "court shall grant summary
judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant
is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Granting a motion for summary judgment is proper if
the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, admissions on file, and affidavits filed in
support of the motion demonstrate that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact that the
moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); Anderson v. Liberty
Lobby, Inc., 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2509-10 (1986). The court must find "[a] factual dispute . . . [to be]
'genuine' if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party
. . . [and a] fact . . . [to be] 'material' if it might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing
substantive law." Beck v. Somerset Techs., Inc., 882 F.2d 993, 996 (5th Cir. 1989) (citing Anderson,
106 S.Ct. at 2510).
If the moving party meets the initial burden of establishing that there is no genuine issue, the
burden shifts to the non-moving party to produce evidence of the existence of a genuine issue for
trial. Celeotex Corp. v. Catrett, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2552 (1986). The non-movant cannot satisfy the
summary judgment burden with conclusory allegations, unsubstantiated assertions, or only a scintilla
of evidence. Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069, 1075 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc). If the
opposing party bears the burden of proof at trial, the moving party does not have to submit
evidentiary documents properly to support its motion, but need only point out the absence of
2
evidence supporting the essential elements of the opposing party’s case. Saunders v. Michelin Tire
Corp., 942 F.2d 299, 301 (5th Cir. 1991).
II.
Negligence Under the General Maritime Law
Rueda raises a maritime negligence claim against CGB. To prevail on a negligence claim
under admiralty law, the plaintiff must prove: (1) that the defendant owed it a duty; (2) the defendant
breached that duty; (3) the breach was the cause-in-fact and legal cause of plaintiff's damages; and,
(4) actual damages. In re Mid–S. Towing Co., 418 F.3d 526, 531 (5th Cir. 2005); see also 1 Thomas
J. Schoenbaum, Admiralty and Maritime Law § 5–2 (2d ed. 1994). In admiralty cases, the standard
of care is established by statutes or regulations, maritime custom, or by the general principles of
negligence law. S.C. Loveland, Inc. v. E.W. Towing, Inc., 608 F.2d 160, 165 (5th Cir. 1979).
CGB filed the affidavit Klint Beckendorf, its corporate counsel in support of its motion for
summary judgment . Beckendorf bases the statements in his affidavit on his personal knowledge
and access to the company's documents. In his affidavit, Beckendorf states that CGB did not
employ, hire, train or supervise the crane operator involved in the incident, nor did CGB own or
maintain the crane. CGB did not own the M/V JUN JIE or the vessel upon which the crane was
aboard. Further, nobody at the worksite or engaged in the cargo operations at the time of Reina's
accident was employed by or under the control of CGB.
Rueda argues that Beckendorf's affidavit is not sufficient summary judgment evidence and
that there are genuine issues of material fact as to whether CGB owned the crane. As evidence,
Rueda cites a Barge Service Agreement dated August 22, 1994, in which CGB contracts with St.
John Fleeting, Inc. to clean, paint and repair river equipment, and requires CGB to provide a crane
3
barge for that purpose. Rueda also argues that CGB is liable for unseaworthiness for providing an
unseaworthy crane barge.
Beckendorf's affidavit is competent summary judgment evidence because it is verified as
"true and correct" and made under the penalty of perjury. Nissho-Iwai Am. Corp. v. Kline, 845 F.2d
1300, 1306-07 (5th Cir. 1988). Beckendorf's affidavit establishes that CGB was not in any way
associated with the crane involved in Reina's accident. Rueda has not put forth any evidence that
specifically contradicts the statements in Beckendorf's affidavit. Because CGB was not in any way
associated with the crane involved in the accident, CGB cannot be held liable for negligence or
unseaworthiess.1 CGB's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED, and plaintiff's claims against
it are DISMISSED.
CONCLUSION
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Consolidated Grain & Barge, Inc.'s Motion for Summary
Judgment (Doc. #15) is GRANTED, and plaintiff's claims against it are DISMISSED.
5th
New Orleans, Louisiana, this _____ day of September, 2018.
____________________________________
MARY ANN VIAL LEMMON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
1
Rueda did not plead a claim for unseaworthiness in the complaint.
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?