Kilgore Marine Services L L C v. Seatrepid International L L C

Filing 18

MEMORANDUM ORDER denying 11 Motion to Consolidate Cases. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carol B Whitehurst on 8/29/2024. (crt,Kiper, C)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
LAFAYETTE DIVISION

KILGORE MARINE SERVICES LLC

CASE NO. 6:24-CV-00698*

VERSUS

JUDGE DAVID C. JOSEPH

SEATREPID INTERNATIONAL LLC

MAGISTRATE JUDGE CAROL B.
WHITEHURST

*Also to be filed in Case No. 6:24-CV-00715
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Before the Court is SeaTrepid International, LLC’s Motion to Consolidate this
case with SeaTrepid International, LLC v. M/V Warren Thomas, et al, Case No.
6:24-CV-00715. (Rec. Doc. 11). Kilgore Marine Services, LLC opposed the motion.
(Rec. Doc. 13). Defendants in No. 24-CV-00715 also opposed the motion, but, not
having been served with motion, did not file an opposition. Counsel presented
arguments at a telephone hearing on August 29, 2024.
The pleadings in these cases allege that Kilgore and SeaTrepid entered into a
Master Charter Agreement, pursuant to which Kilgore supplied SeaTrepid with the
M/V Warren Thomas for a remotely operated vehicle (ROV) inspection of an
offshore platform. Kilgore subcontracted with Supreme Offshore Services, Inc. for
the vessel. An incident occurred which SeaTrepid blames on the vessel’s crew.
Kilgore filed a Petition for Suit on Open Account in April 2024 in state court against

SeaTrepid, seeking payment for unpaid charter fees. (Rec. Doc. 1-1). SeaTrepid
removed to this Court. At around the same time, SeaTrepid filed a separate suit
against Kilgore, Supreme Offshore, and the vessel in rem seeking to recover for
damage to its ROV and other damages incurred from the incident. (24-CV-00715
Doc. 1). SeaTrepid now seeks to consolidate the two suits.
F.R.C.P. Rule 42(a) provides: “If actions before the court involve a common
question of law or fact, the court may: (1) join for hearing or trial any or all matters
at issue in the actions; (2) consolidate the actions; or (3) issue any other orders to
avoid unnecessary cost or delay.”
The district court has broad discretion in determining whether to consolidate
cases, and consolidation may properly be denied where the cases are at different
stages of preparedness for trial. Mills v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 886 F.2d 758, 762
(5th Cir. 1989). A nonexhaustive list of factors courts consider when deciding a
motion to consolidate includes: (1) whether the cases are pending in the same court,
(2) whether the cases involve a common party, (3) whether the cases involve
common issues of law or fact, (4) whether consolidation risks the possibility of
prejudice or confusion, and if there is such a risk, if the risk of inconsistent
adjudications if tried separately outweighs that risk, (5) whether consolidation will
result in an unfair advantage, (6) whether consolidation will conserve judicial
resources and increase judicial efficiencies, and (7) whether consolidation will

reduce the expense of trying the case separately. Crescent Bank & Tr. v. Cadle Co.
II, No. CV 21-3961, 2021 WL 6616587, at *1 (W.D. La. Dec. 13, 2021).
SeaTrepid argues consolidation is appropriate because both cases arise out of
the same incident. Kilgore disagrees, arguing its claims against SeaTrepid
encompass only its unpaid invoices incurred pursuant to the charter agreement.
Whereas, Kilgore contends, SeaTrepid’s claims relate to liability for the incident,
which are irrelevant to its open account claims.
The Court agrees that consolidation is not warranted. Although the claims
involve some of the same parties, the claims are distinct. This suit (24-CV-00694)
concerns Kilgore’s claim for payment under its charter agreement with SeaTrepid.
The other suit (24-CV-00715) concerns SeaTrepid’s claims for property damage
arising out of Kilgore’s alleged negligence and/or breach of contract in the
underlying incident. Because the claims are distinct, the Court does not appreciate
the possibility for inconsistent judgments. Further, consolidation could
unnecessarily increase the costs of litigation by requiring Kilgore’s counsel in this
case (different from Kilgore’s counsel as a defendant in 24-CV-00715) to participate
in discovery and proceedings in both cases. Hence, although some issues may
overlap, the Court denies consolidation. See also H&E Equip. Servs., Inc. v.
Transportation & Logistical Servs., Inc., No. CV 20-365-JWD-SDJ, 2021 WL

9648981, at *2 (M.D. La. Dec. 6, 2021) (denying consolidation in an analogous
case).
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that SeaTrepid International, LLC’s Motion to Consolidate
(Rec. Doc. 11) is DENIED.
Signed at Lafayette, Louisiana on this 29th day of August, 2024.

____________________________________
CAROL B. WHITEHURST
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE