Caytrans Project Services Americas, Ltd v. BBC Chartering & Logistics GmbH & Co. KG

Filing 41

ORDER AND REASONS - IT IS ORDERED that 33 Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's July 22, 2020 Order and Reasons is DENIED, as set forth herein. Signed by Judge Martin L.C. Feldman on 9/14/2020. (sa)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
CAYTRANS PROJECT SERVICES
AMERICAS, LTD.

CIVIL ACTION

v.

NO. 20-414

BBC CHARTERING & LOGISTICS
GmbH & CO. KG, ET AL.

SECTION “F”

ORDER AND REASONS
Before

the

Court

is

the

plaintiff’s

motion

for

reconsideration of the Court’s July 22, 2020 Order and Reasons
granting

the

defendants’

motion

to

dismiss

in

light

of

the

plaintiff’s failure to join an indispensable party under Rule 19.
For the reasons that follow, the motion is DENIED.
Background
This Order and Reasons assumes familiarity with the Court’s
July 22, 2020 Order and Reasons on the aforementioned motion to
dismiss (the “Order”). In that decision, the Court recounted the
background of this commercial dispute and explained the basis for
its finding that non-party Caytrans BBC is “required” under Rule
19(a) and “indispensable” under Rule 19(b).
I.
While the plaintiff dutifully rehashes its arguments to the
contrary, two decisive facts remain: one, that Caytrans BBC is
1

indeed required under Rule 19(a), and two, that its absence from
this action compels dismissal of the plaintiff’s complaint.
As

detailed

in

the

Order,

the

plaintiff’s

arguments

concerning the Rule 19(b) factors fall flat. At bottom, they are
largely reducible to the single assertion that, in function if not
in form, Caytrans BBC is present in this litigation through its
two

50%

members.

But

while

the

functional

looseness

of

this

contention has some appeal, it blinks at the reality that Caytrans
BBC is in fact a distinct and individual entity under Louisiana
law. This reality cannot be ignored and colors much of the Order
at issue - and tellingly, the plaintiff is loath to address it
head on.
As important in the context of this motion for reconsideration
is the fact that the plaintiff’s motion fails to overcome - or, in
some places, even address - the sound reasons the Court provided
for dismissing this action in favor of an already-pending statecourt action that promises to achieve a more complete, just, and
efficient result for all parties involved. That determination was
well within the Court’s discretion under Rule 19(b) and satisfied
the Court’s obligation to weigh all relevant factors “in equity
and good conscience.” As such, it cannot be said that the Order

2

would work a manifest error of law or injustice, and the Court
declines the plaintiff’s invitation to reconsider it. 1
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED: that the plaintiff’s motion for
reconsideration is DENIED.
New Orleans, Louisiana, September 14, 2020

______________________________
MARTIN L. C. FELDMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

As if the Court needed any additional confirmation, it learned
just days before this motion’s submission that the plaintiff filed
a new state-court lawsuit that further – if not completely undermines its arguments for reconsideration.
The plaintiff’s
filing of that suit heightens the prejudice this action may
engender, promises to make any remedies ordered in this action
even less adequate, and amounts to a concession that the plaintiff
will not lack a parallel opportunity to achieve an adequate remedy
if this action is dismissed.
As such, those facts provide yet
more
reason
for
denying
the
plaintiff’s
motion
for
reconsideration.
1

Of further note is the fact that the plaintiff filed the
aforementioned state-court suit just one day after it filed this
motion for reconsideration. All the while, counsel made no mention
of that fact to the Court or opposing counsel. That makes it clear
that the plaintiff should never have filed this motion. Or, at
the very least, it should have withdrawn this motion as soon as it
decided to reverse course by filing a state-court suit. By failing
to do so, plaintiff’s counsel has wasted the Court’s time and
forced opposing counsel to brief a silly motion. For that reason,
the Court notes counsel’s poor judgment in this regard and refers
counsel to 28 U.S.C. § 1927.
3