Bruce Oakley Inc v. Vidalia Dock & Storage Co et al

Filing 35

ORDER granting 17 Motion to Change Venue Signed by Honorable David C. Bramlette, III on 9/26/2016 (ECW) [Transferred from Mississippi Southern on 9/27/2016.]

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
WESTERN DIVISION
BRUCE OAKLEY, INC.

PLAINTIFF

VS.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:15-cv-57(DCB)(MTP)

VIDALIA DOCK & STORAGE COMPANY

DEFENDANT

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This cause is before the Court on defendant Vidalia Dock &
Storage Company (“Vidalia Dock”)’s Motion to Transfer Venue (docket
entry

17).

Having

carefully

considered

the

motion

and

the

plaintiff’s response, as well as the memoranda of the parties and
the applicable law, and being fully advised in the premises, the
Court finds as follows:
On July 3, 2014, Cameron Evans (“Evans”), a resident citizen
of Wilkinson County, Mississippi, filed a Seaman’s Complaint under
the Jones Act and general maritime law against his employer,
Vidalia Dock, in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Louisiana, Alexandria Division, cause no. 1:14-cv2255(DDD)(JDK). Vidalia Dock is a corporation authorized to do and
doing business in the State of Louisiana.

The Complaint alleges

negligence on the part of Vidalia Dock concerning an incident on
May 14, 2014, resulting in injuries and damages to Evans.

Evans

also seeks maintenance and cure.
On April 22, 2015, Vidalia Dock brought third-party claims in
the Louisiana action against Oakley (owner of the Oakley Barge BOI

227 (“BOI 227”)), on which Evans was working at the direction of
his employer) and the Natchez-Adams County Port (“Natchez Port”).
Oakley filed a Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss.

The Louisiana

District Court granted the motion only partially, i.e. it dismissed
Vidalia Dock’s third-party unseaworthiness claim against Oakley,
but declined to address Vidalia Dock’s third-party negligence claim
against

Oakley.

Vidalia

Dock

appealed

the

district

court’s

dismissal of its unseaworthiness claim to the Fifth Circuit Court
of Appeals, where it is still pending.1
On June 24, 2015, Oakley filed a Complaint against Vidalia
Dock in this Court, alleging $730,000 in damages to the BOI 227 as
a result of the May 14, 2014 incident.

On October 19, 2015, Oakley

filed an Amended Complaint naming Natchez Port as a defendant.
Vidalia Dock urges the Court to transfer this action to the
Western Division of Louisiana, Alexandria Division, on grounds of
judicial economy and comity, as well as the “first to file” rule
promulgated by the Fifth Circuit.

See Save Power Ltd. v. Syntek

Finance Corp., 121 F.3d 947 (5th Cir. 1997).

In order for the

“first to file” rule to apply, it is not necessary that the
lawsuits be identical.

Instead,

The crucial inquiry is one of ‘substantial overlap’:

1

Oakley has since filed a second Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to
Dismiss the negligence claim. The Louisiana district court has
advised the parties that it will not rule on Oakley’s motion to
dismiss Vidalia Dock’s third-party negligence claim until the
Court of Appeals has rendered its decision.
2

Once the likelihood of substantial overlap between the
two suits had been demonstrated, it was no longer up to
the court in Texas to resolve the question of whether
both should be allowed to proceed.
By virtue of its
prior jurisdiction over the common subject matter and its
injunction of suit involving that subject matter in
Texas, the ultimate determination of whether there
actually
was
a
substantial
overlap
requiring
consolidation of the two suits in New York belonged to
the United States District Court in New York.
Mann Mfg., 439 F.2d at 408. “Regardless of whether or
not the suits here are identical, if they overlap on the
substantive issues, the cases would be required to be
consolidated in ... the jurisdiction first seized of the
issues.” Id. at 408 n.6; see also TPM Holdings, Inc. v.
Intra-Gold Indus., Inc., 91 F.3d 1, 4 (1st Cir. 1996).
Id. at 950-51.
The Louisiana case was filed almost a year prior to the
Mississippi suit, and discovery in the Louisiana court has been
ongoing.

The parties to the two suits are the same, with the

exception that the Louisiana suit also has a personal injury
plaintiff.

Vidalia Dock has filed a Third-Party

Demand against

Oakley and Natchez Port, and Natchez Port has filed a Counterclaim
against Vidalia Dock.

Transfer of the present case to Louisiana

for consolidation will promote judicial economy, and will prevent
duplication of work and effort as well as attorney’s fees and
costs.

Transfer of this case to Louisiana will promote comity,

avoid piecemeal litigation, and will prevent inconsistencies in
rulings from separate courts on the same facts and issues.
importantly,

the

Louisiana

court

has

already

ruled

on

Most
the

unseaworthiness issue, and the issue is now before the Fifth

3

Circuit.

The Louisiana court has also denied a Rule 12(B)(6)

motion brought by Natchez Port regarding Vidalia Dock’s negligence
claim against it, and that claim is still pending before the
Louisiana court.

The Louisiana litigation is therefore much

further along than the case before this Court, and integral issues
regarding fault and liability have already been ruled upon in that
court.

Thus there is substantial overlap between the two suits,

including issues of liability, unseaworthiness, negligence, and
apportionment of fault.
Additionally, the Court finds that the case before this Court
should

be

transferred

to

the

Western

District

of

Louisiana,

Alexandria Division, because Oakley’s Complaint is a Compulsory
Counterclaim that must be included in the Louisiana litigation.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 13(a) provides:
(1) ... A pleading must state as a counterclaim any claim
that - at the time of its service - the pleader has
against an opposing party if the claim:
A. arises out of the transaction or occurrence that is
the subject matter of the opposing party’s claim; and
B. does not require adding another party over whom the
court cannot acquire jurisdiction.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 13(a)(1)(A)-(B).
Oakley’s claim in the Mississippi suit arises out of the same
transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of Vidalia
Dock’s Third-Party Demand against Oakley in the Louisiana suit, and
does not require adding another party over whom the Louisiana court

4

cannot

acquire

jurisdiction.

Natchez

Port

filed

its

own

Counterclaim in response to Vidalia Dock’s Third-Party Demand in
the

Louisiana

suit.

Oakley’s

Mississippi

Complaint

also

constitutes a Compulsory Counterclaim that must be included in
Oakley’s pleadings in the Louisiana court, and it does not meet the
exceptions to the definition of a Compulsory Counterclaim found in
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 13(a)(2).
Oakley

asserts

that

it

made

its

decision

to

file

the

Mississippi suit based on its belief that Natchez Port would raise
the

90-day

notice

provision

of

Miss.

Code

Ann.

§

11-46-11.

However, Natchez Port did not raise the defense in the Louisiana
suit, and has not raised it in the Mississippi suit.
and Crossclaim (docket entry 8).

See Answer

In addition, Natchez Port’s

Answer in the Louisiana litigation contains a Crossclaim against
Vidalia Dock, seeking indemnification from Vidalia Dock for the
exact damages sought by Oakley in the Mississippi suit. See Answer
and

Crossclaim

(Case

Louisiana, Document 52).

No.

1:14-cv-2255,

Western

District

of

Thus, Natchez Port has likely waived the

90-day notice provision.
Finally, the Court finds that if this case is transferred to
Louisiana, and if the Louisiana trial court’s dismissal of Vidalia
Dock’s unseaworthiness claim against Oakley is affirmed by the
Fifth Circuit, this would not result in dismissal of Vidalia Dock’s
property damage claim against Oakley.

5

Regardless of the Fifth

Circuit’s decision on the unseaworthiness claim, Oakley’s property
damage

claim

regarding

the

BOI

227

would

still

be

a

viable

controversy in the Louisiana court.
The Court therefore finds that although it has subject matter
jurisdiction and is also a proper venue for this action, the Court
has discretion to transfer this case to the United States District
Court for the Western District of Louisiana, Alexandria Division,
on grounds of judicial economy and comity, as well as the “first to
file” rule promulgated by the Fifth Circuit.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant Vidalia Dock & Storage
Company’s Motion to Transfer Venue (docket entry 17) is GRANTED.
A separate Order of Transfer shall issue this day.
SO ORDERED, this the 26th day of September, 2016.

/s/ David Bramlette
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

6