Castille et al v. Apache Deepwater L L C et al

Filing 198

MEMORANDUM RULING re 156 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Island Operating Co Inc. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carol B Whitehurst on 6/20/2017. (crt,Chicola, C)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
LAFAYETTE DIVISION
Castille et al

Civil Action No. 12-02892

versus

Magistrate Judge Carol B. Whitehurst

Apache Deepwater LLC et al

By Consent of the Parties

MEMORANDUM RULING
Before the Court is a Motion For Summary Judgment filed by defendant, Island
Operating Company, Inc. (“IOC”), [Rec. Doc. 156] and Rory L. Castille and Natasha
Castille’s Memorandum in response thereto [Rec. Doc. 173]. For the following
reasons, IOC’s Motion will be granted.
I. Background
This action arises out of an accident on October 13, 2012, in which Rory
Castille (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) sustained personal injuries and damages while
working on Apache’s West Cameron 111-F unmanned satellite production platform
(“WC 111-F”) on the Outer Continental Shelf. At the time of the accident, Plaintiff
was employed by Total Safety, Inc. (“Total Safety”) as a technician for navigational
aids and fire-fighting equipment. Plaintiff alleges he was injured when, after opening
the door to the wellhead master control panel (“MCP”) on WC 111-F, he was
engulfed by a flash fire. R. 1, ¶.
Plaintiffs brought this suit on November 14, 2012. R. 1. Plaintiffs originally

sued Apache, the owner of WC 111-F, and IOC1, the operator of the platform, “in
the alternative in the event it is established that as operator it failed to take proper
safeguards. . .”2 Plaintiffs claimed that as a result of Defendants’ negligence, Rory
Castille (“hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff”) suffered and will continue to suffer
bodily injuries, physical pain and mental anguish, physical impairment and
disfigurement, loss of earnings, and medical expenses. Id at ¶9. Natasha Castille
alleged a loss of consortium claim. Id at ¶ 10.
IOC filed the instant Motion for Summary Judgment seeking dismissal of
Plaintiff’s claims with prejudice. R. 156. IOC argues that the foregoing facts establish
that no IOC production operator was ever in a position to prevent Plaintiff’s accident.
IOC further argues that it is not liable for Plaintiffs’ alleged injuries because it did not
assume nor did it owe a duty of care to Plaintiff.
No party has filed an opposition to the motion. Instead, the plaintiffs filed a

1

IOC furnished contract production operators to Apache for WC 111-F, as well as other
platforms in the WC 111-F field.
2

Plaintiffs later filed multiple amended complaints alleging liability against the following
party-defendants: Haskel International, Inc., as the manufacturer of the pump supply regulator, R.
21; Norgren, Inc. and/or Norgren, USA, as the manufacturer of the plastic regulator which allows
pressure to flow to the Haskel pump; Vastar Resources, Inc. and/or BP America Production
Company (“BP”), as the original owner of the WC 111-F platform, R. 33; Control Concepts, Inc.
(“Control Concepts”) and Linear Controls, Inc. (“Linear”), entities retained by Apache to inspect
and/or repair the inside of the MCP on the WC 111-F platform, R. 73; and W-Industries of
Louisiana, d/b/a Control Concepts and Technology (“W-Industries”), as the manufacturer of the
MCP on the WC 111-F platform and who was retained by Apache to inspect, and/or repair the
inside of the MCP on 111-F, see R. 81, 132. At the time of this ruling, all party-defendants had
been dismissed except Apache, IOC, W-Industries and BP.
2

“Memorandum Regarding Island Operating Company, Inc.’s Motion For Summary
Judgment.” R. 173. In the Memorandum, the plaintiffs addressed the “pertinent facts”
set forth by IOC in its memorandum in support of the Motion for Summary Judgment.
Id. The plaintiffs state that they do not dispute the “pertinent facts” in support of
IOC’s Motion.3 Id. Accordingly, the Court construes the plaintiffs’ Memorandum as
a concession that they have no objection to IOC’s Motion for Summary Judgment and
a concurrence that these facts are undisputed.
II. Summary Judgment Standard
Summary judgment will be granted only if the pleadings, depositions, answers
to interrogatories, and admissions, together with affidavits, show that there is no
genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a
judgment as a matter of law. Fed R. Civ P. 56(c); Brown v. City of Houston, 337 F.3d
539, 540–41 (5th Cir.2003). A material fact is a fact which, under applicable law, may
alter the outcome of the suit. Ameristar Jet Charter, Inc. v. Signal Composites, Inc.,
271 F.3d 624, 626 (5th Cir.2001). A dispute is genuine when a reasonable finder of
fact could resolve the issue in favor of either party, based on the evidence before it.
See Royal v. CCC & R Tres Arboles, L.L.C., 736 F.3d 396, 400 (5th Cir.2013). “The
moving party bears the burden of demonstrating that there exists no genuine issues

3

On June 1, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a Motion to Correct [Rec. Doc. 178-2 ] indicating
that their Memorandum stating “Plaintiff does dispute that the report of Stephen
Killingsworth...”, R. 173, should state “Plaintiff does not dispute....”
3

of material fact.”

In re Vioxx Prods. Liab. Litig., 501 F.Supp.2d 776, 781

(E.D.La.2007). When considering a motion for summary judgment, the Court must
“review the facts drawing all inferences most favorable to the party opposing the
motion.” Gen. Universal Sys., Inc. v. Lee, 379 F.3d 131, 137 (5th Cir.2004). The
non-moving party must then go beyond the pleadings and “identify specific evidence
in the record and ... articulate the precise manner in which that evidence supports his
or her claim.” Fuentes v. Postmaster Gen. of U.S. Postal Serv., 282 F. App'x 296,
300 (5th Cir.2008). Conclusory allegations, speculation, unsubstantiated assertions,
and legalistic arguments are not an adequate substitute for specific facts showing a
genuine issue for trial. TIG Ins. Co. v. Sedgwick James of Wash., 276 F.3d 754, 759
(5th Cir.2002).
III. Analysis
IOC contends it is not liable for Plaintiff’s alleged injuries because it did not
owe Plaintiff a duty to maintain and/or repair any parts located within the wellhead
MCP on WC 111-F which lead to Plaintiff’s injuries. It is undisputed that because
this case arises on the OCS, the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (“OCSLA”)
mandates that the law of the adjacent state, in this case Louisiana, governs Plaintiff’s
claims to the extent that it does not conflict with other federal law and regulations.
43 U.S.C. § 1333(a)(2)(A); McNeese v. Reading & Bates Drilling Co., 749 F.2d 270,
273 (5th Cir.1985) (state law is “surrogate federal law”). The Fifth Circuit has held
4

that Louisiana’s “duty-risk” standard does not conflict with federal law. Gates v. Shell
Oil, 812 F.2d 1509, 1516 (5th Cir. 1987) (citing Harris v. Pizza Hut of Louisiana, Inc.,
455 So.2d 1364, 1369-70 (La.1984)).
“Negligence claims under Louisiana law undergo a five-part analysis: did the
defendant owe a duty to conform conduct to a specific standard; was that obligation
breached; was the breach the cause-in-fact of plaintiff's injury; was the breach the
cause-in-law of plaintiff's injuries; and have actual damages been shown?” McCarroll
v. Wood Group Management Services, Inc., 561 Fed.Appx. 407, 409–10 (5th Cir.
2014). “In Louisiana the existence of a duty and its scope are questions of law. Duty
varies depending on the facts, circumstances, and context of each case and is limited
by the particular risk, harm, and plaintiff involved.” Dupre v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc.,
20 F.3d 154, 157 (5th Cir. 1994).
IOC contends that the following undisputed deposition testimony demonstrates
the absence of a legal duty owed to Plaintiff by IOC under the facts and
circumstances of this case.
1. Facts Related to IOC’s Alleged Liability
IOC personnel were to perform visual inspections only of the inside of MCP’s
located on Apache’s WC platforms (including WC 111-F) during the operators’
regularly scheduled pollution inspections. R. 156, Exh A, Depo of Price, p. 29; Exh
D, Depo of Henry, p. 37; Exh H, Depo of Bourque, p. 25. These visual inspections
5

were only to assure there were no leaks of hydraulic fluid nor any leaks going into the
Gulf. R. 156, Exh, A, Depo of Price, p. 41, 59. In the event the IOC inspection
revealed anything abnormal, the IOC employee was to inform “the Apache PIC4 or
[let] Control Concepts or Linear know.” Id., Exh H, Depo of Bourque, p. 34-35.
On October 13, 2012, Plaintiff was scheduled to service the navigational aid
system at WC 111-F. R. 156, Exh. B, Plaintiff’s Depo, p. 52. This service was to
include replacing the batteries for the foghorn located in the battery boxes on the
production deck of the platform, and checking the synchronicity of the Navaid lights.
Id. Before Castille departed the WC71-D platform to perform his work at WC 111-F,
Apache’s personnel—either area assistant production foreman John Price and/or
Robert Bergeron, the lead operator/PIC on the WC71-D platform—decided Castille
needed someone to accompany him. Id.,Exh. G, Depo of Wilkerson, pp. 19-20.
In the normal course of operations, Apache would have relied on IOC operators
Steve Henry and/or Derek Wilson to make IOC’s periodic scheduled pollution
inspection visits to the WC111-F platform. Id, Exh. A, Depo of Price, p. 29. On the
date of the accident, however, Apache “had too much work going on” and “… didn’t
have enough people to get over there [WC 111-F].” Id, Exh G, Depo of Wilkerson, p.
64. Therefore, Bergeron, Id at p. 27, and/or John Price decided David Wilkerson,

4

Robert Bergeron was Apache’s Person-In-Charge (“PIC”) on the headquarters’ platform,
WC 71-D.
6

rather than Henry or Wilson, would accompany Castille, to WC 111-F. Id at pp. 19;
64. Wilkerson, who was in training and had never before been to WC 111-F, Id at pp.
63-64, was told to assist Castille with loading and unloading batteries at WC 111-F.
Id, at pp. 19-20; 34.
Wilkerson and Plaintiff were flown by helicopter from WC 71D to WC 111-F
on October 13, 2012. Id at p. 20.After they finished replacing batteries on WC
111-F’s main deck, Plaintiff called for the Apache helicopter to pick up him and
Wilkerson. Id at pp. 38-39. While waiting on the helicopter to arrive, Wilkerson, per
his instructions from Bergeron, carried the old/used batteries back up to the helipad,
making multiple trips up and down the stairs (i.e., to-and-from the helipad deck
level). Id at pp. 44-46. After having dropped off the second used battery on the
helipad deck, while descending the stairs from the helipad to the production deck,
Wilkerson heard a “loud thud.” Id at p. 46. He then approached Castille “with a fire
extinguisher and patted him out –.” Id at p. 47. Subsequent to the ignition of the
subject flash fire, Wilkerson also sprayed the outside of the MCP door with the fire
extinguisher in an attempt to “snuff out the flame even more if there was one.”5 Id at
p. 49.
IOC asserts that the results of an investigation performed by the Bureau of
5

In his deposition, Plaintiff testified that he opened the MCP on WC111-F after having
heard a hissing sound coming from the MCP, and that the subject flash fire occurred
instantaneously thereafter.
7

Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) suggested the flash fire of which the
plaintiff complains occurred as a result of the failure of the subject “O” ring on a
Haskell pump supply regulator located inside the wellhead MCP. Id, Exh. A, Depo
of Price, pp. 127-128; 151-152. IOC performed no work inside of Apache MCP
beyond the visual inspection; including no work on the regulators themselves, or their
“O” rings. Id, at pp. 27; 29; 33; 36–38; 41; 59; 71–73. The condition of this “O” ring
was not visible to Steve Henry and/or Derek Wilson. Id at pp. 76-80; see also, Exh
— Photographs of MCP exterior and interior. The regulator and its “O” ring were
beneath each of the Haskel Pumps. Id at pp. 76-80.
In their Response to IOC’s Motion, R. 173, the plaintiffs state:
Plaintiff does not dispute that the report of Stephen Killingsworth,
plaintiff expert in safety/mechanical engineering, makes no mention of
Island Operating Company.
Plaintiff does not dispute that the investigation by BSEE
concluded, in part, that the flash fire which caused injury/burning to the
plaintiff, was a result of the failure of the subject "O" Ring on the
"Haskell Pump" supply regulator (Norgren Regulator) inside the
Wellhead Control Panel.
According to all testimony elicited thus far, Island Operating
Company's production operators were responsible only for visible
inspection of the interior of the panel in question.
Steve Henry and Derek Wilson of Island Operating Company did
testify in depositions that they did not/could not view the conditions of
the "O" Ring at any relevant time. Plaintiff cannot directly dispute, as
Island Operating Company contends, that the company was not tasked
to discover/report/inspect "O" Ring problems".

8

Plaintiff does agree that the breach of duty of other
contractors/entities, including Apache, BP, W-Industries of Louisiana,
etc. were responsible for plaintiffs injuries/damages.
Plaintiff does not dispute that Apache personnel (referenced
primarily as John Price and Dennis Sonnier) controlled the day to day
activities of lsland Operating Company's personnel, but would submit
that they did not "control" Total Safety. (See Plaintiff s Memorandum
in Opposition to Summary Judgment by Apache)
Plaintiff admits that Island Operating Company does not own the
platform in question where the Wellhead Control Panel in question was
located. (WC 11l F)
Plaintiff agrees with Island Operating Company's statement that
Louisiana's "Duty Risk" Analysis is applicable by virtue of this accident
occurring on the Outer Continental Shelf and the application of the
OCSLA.
Plaintiff agrees that Apache's own "Normal Operations
Procedures" for WC 111F expressly delineates that Island Operating
Company is to perform "visual inspections only" of each panel for leaks,
etc.
Plaintiff does not dispute the protocol employed by Island
Operating Company to perform its "monthly inspections". Further,
plaintiff does not dispute the contentions of Island Operating Company
that Apache, along with Control Concepts, were responsible to maintain
and repair internal parts on the Wellhead Control Panels on Apache's
platforms in the WC field.
In conclusion, plaintiff does not dispute that Island Operating
Company did not have ownership obligations nor custodial obligations
of the Wellhead Control Panel on the platform in question. Further,
plaintiff does not dispute that Island Operating Company had no
"contractual relationship" with plaintiff's employer, Total Safety; nor did
Island Operating Company, Inc. personnel supervise plaintiff s work
methods on the date of accident.

9

The plaintiffs confirm the facts relied upon by IOC to establish that its motion
for summary judgment should be granted. As there is no genuine issue as to any
material fact, Plaintiff cannot meet the evidentiary burden to prove the elements
required to recover on his negligence claim against IOC.
IV. Conclusion
The Court finds that IOC has established the absence of any genuine issue of
material fact as to an element of the plaintiffs claims for which the plaintiffs bear the
burden of proof. The plaintiffs have not come forward with proof sufficient to create
a genuine issue as to whether IOC owed a duty to Rory Castille; therefore, the
plaintiffs’ claims against IOC fail as a matter of law. Accordingly, IOC’s motion for
summary judgment [Rec. Doc. 156] will be granted, and the plaintiffs’ claims against
IOC will be dismissed with prejudice.
Thus done and signed this 20th day of June, 2017 at Lafayette, Louisiana.

10