In Re: In the Matter of American River Transportation Co. LLC.
Filing
43
ORDER AND REASONS - IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Enforce Court's Order and to Dismiss Claims for Punitive Damages (Rec. Doc. 32 ) is GRANTED. The claims for punitive damages brought by claimants, Ronald D. Neal and Philip and Rebecca Graves, individually and as co-administrators of the Succession of Spencer William Graves, against American River Transportation Co., LLC are DISMISSED. Signed by Judge Mary Ann Vial Lemmon on 10/17/2018. (sa)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
IN THE MATTER OF
AMERICAN RIVER
TRANSPORTATION, CO., LLC,
AS THE OWNER AND
OPERATOR OF THE M/V
LOUISIANA LADY, PRAYING
FOR EXONERATION FROM
OR LIMITATION OF
LIABILITY
CIVIL ACTION
NO: 18-2186
SECTION: "S" (2)
ORDER AND REASONS
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that American River Transportation Co.,
L.L.C.'s Motion to Enforce Court's Order and to Dismiss Claims for Punitive
Damages (Rec. Doc. 32) is GRANTED. The claims for punitive damages brought
by claimants, Ronald D. Neal and Philip and Rebecca Graves, individually and as
co-administrators of the Succession of Spencer William Graves, against American
River Transportation Co., LLC are DISMISSED.
BACKGROUND
This matter is before the court on motion of petitioner in limitation,
American River Transport Co., L.L.C. ("ARTCO"). Claimants, Ronald D. Neal and
Philip and Rebecca Graves, individually and as co-administrators of the Succession
of Spencer William Graves (collectively, "claimants"), oppose the motion. The
motion is before the court on briefs without oral argument.
On August 22, 2018, this court entered an order dismissing claimants' claims
for non-pecuniary damages, including punitive damages. Rec. Doc. 30. The Order
and Reasons dismissing the claims cited McBride v. Estis Well Serv., L.L.C., 768
F.3d 382, 391 (5th Cir. 2014)(en banc). In that case, the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, sitting en banc, explicitly held that: "On the subject
of recoverable damages in a wrongful death case under the Jones Act and the
general maritime law, [the Supreme Court] has limited the survivor's recovery to
pecuniary losses. . . . Punitive damages, which are designed to punish the
wrongdoer rather than compensate the victim, by definition are not pecuniary
losses. Punitive damages are not recoverable by the plaintiffs in these actions."Id.
at 391.
Subsequently, claimants filed a First Amended and Superseding Master
Answer (Rec. Doc. 31), in which they once again seek punitive damages. In
addition, the First Amended and Superseding Answer includes a footnote which
states the following:
Claimants are both mindful and respectful of the Court’s recent ruling on
ARTCO’s Rule 12 Motion regarding the recovery of non-pecuniary
damages under the Jones Act and/or General Maritime Law. That Rule
12 Motion was arguably premature, as it preceded Claimants’ complete
articulation of all theories of recovery and allegations of the range of
2
applicable damage. As such, and with the utmost respect and deference
to the Court and its ruling, Claimants have, in an abundance of caution
and as a purely prophylactic measure, asserted claims for punitive
damages, attorney’s fees, loss of consortium/society, and other measures
on non-pecuniary damages, so as to preserve those claims for appellate
review, if that circumstance comes to pass. Claimants thus anticipate a
Motion To Strike certain allegation in their FASA, and do not intend to
disobey or ignore the Court’s prior ruling: rather, Claimants merely seek
to preserve those allegations, claims and issues for possible appellate
review.
In opposing the instant motion to dismiss, claimants do not suggest there has
been any change in the law governing this question that would entitle them to
punitive damages, but rather point to the above-quoted footnote, stating that the
punitive damages claims were included in an abundance of caution and as a
prophylactic measure.
Claimants' motives in filing legally unfounded claims are not relevant to this
motion. "[I]f as a matter of law it is clear that no relief could be granted under any
set of facts that could be proved consistent with the allegations, a claim must be
dismissed. . . ." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989). In the face of clear
and applicable precedent rendering the punitive damage claims herein invalid,
petitioner is entitled to dismissal of the claims, and/or enforcement of the court's
prior judgment dismissing the claims. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that American River Transportation Co.,
L.L.C.'s Motion to Enforce Court's Order and to Dismiss Claims for Punitive
3
Damages (Rec. Doc. 32) is GRANTED. The claims for punitive damages brought
by claimants, Ronald D. Neal and Philip and Rebecca Graves, individually and as
co-administrators of the Succession of Spencer William Graves, against American
River Transportation Co., LLC are DISMISSED.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this _____ day of October, 2018.
17th
____________________________________
MARY ANN VIAL LEMMON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?