Robinson v. Denbury Onshore, LLC et al

Filing 113

ORDER denying 93 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 95 Motion for Summary Judgment for the reasons set out in the order. Signed by District Judge Daniel P. Jordan III on May 22, 2012. (SP)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
EASTERN DIVISION
BOBBY ROBINSON

PLAINTIFF

v.

CIVIL ACTION NO.: 4:11cv18-DPJ-LRA

DENBURY ONSHORE, LLC, et al.

DEFENDANTS
ORDER

This premises-liability case is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion for Summary
Judgment on Punitive Damages Claims [93] and Defendant Denbury Operating Company’s
Motion for Summary Judgment [95]. The Court, having considered the submissions of the
parties and the applicable law, concludes that the Motion for Summary Judgment on Punitive
Damages Claims should be denied and Denbury Operating Company’s Motion for Summary
Judgment should be granted.
I.

Facts and Procedural History
This case arises from a July 9, 2010, oil fire at the West Nancy Tank Battery in Vossburg,

Mississippi, which was owned and operated by Denbury Onshore, LLC. Plaintiff Bobby
Robinson was a vacuum truck driver employed by Logan Oil Field Services, LLC, to transport
saltwater stored at the tank battery to a drilling site nearby. Compl. [1] ¶¶ 10, 15. The fire
started when Robinson flipped a switch on an electrical starter panel in the vicinity of an active
oil spill. Defs.’ Mem. [94] Ex. B, Robinson Dep. 81–83, 93, 97. Robinson sustained burns to
his feet and legs. Compl. [1] ¶ 18.
Following an investigation, OSHA issued a citation to Defendant Denbury Onshore, LLC
for a “[s]erious” violation of 29 C.F.R. § 1910.307(c), which provides that electrical equipment
in “hazardous (classified) locations” be intrinsically safe, approved for the hazardous (classified)

location, or safe for the hazardous (classified) location. OSHA concluded that the subject
electrical starter panel “was not approved for a Class 1, Division 2 location,” and was “not
intrinsically safe” and fined Denbury $2,250. Pl.’s Mem. [103] Ex. C, OSHA Citation at 1, 6.
Robinson filed this lawsuit on February 3, 2011, alleging claims for negligence and gross
negligence and seeking compensatory and punitive damages against Denbury Onshore, LLC and
Denbury Operating Company—the sole member of Denbury Onshore, LLC. Denbury Operating
Company now seeks summary judgment arguing that it did not own, occupy, or control the
premises. In addition, all Defendants seek summary judgment on Plaintiff’s punitive damages
claim. The Court has personal and subject matter jurisdiction and is prepared to rule.
II.

Standard
Summary judgment is warranted under Rule 56(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

when evidence reveals no genuine dispute regarding any material fact and that the moving party
is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The rule “mandates the entry of summary judgment,
after adequate time for discovery and upon motion, against a party who fails to make a showing
sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party’s case, and on which that
party will bear the burden of proof at trial.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986).
The party moving for summary judgment “bears the initial responsibility of informing the district
court of the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of [the record] which it believes
demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.” Id. at 323. The nonmoving party
must then “go beyond the pleadings” and “designate ‘specific facts showing that there is a
genuine issue for trial.’” Id. at 324 (citation omitted). In reviewing the evidence, factual
controversies are to be resolved in favor of the nonmovant, “but only when . . . both parties have
2

submitted evidence of contradictory facts.” Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069, 1075 (5th
Cir. 1994). When such contradictory facts exist, the court may “not make credibility
determinations or weigh the evidence.” Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S.
133, 150 (2000). Conclusory allegations, speculation, unsubstantiated assertions, and legalistic
arguments have never constituted 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); SEC
v. Recile, 10 F.3d 1093, 1097 (5th Cir. 1997); Little, 37 F.3d at 1075.
III.

Analysis
A.

Denbury Operating Company’s Motion for Summary Judgment [95]

Under Mississippi law, a premises-liability plaintiff has the burden of establishing, “as a
preliminary matter, . . . that the defendant had occupation or possession and control” of the
premises. Brookhaven Funeral Home, Inc. v. Hill, 820 So. 2d 3, 6 (Miss. Ct. App. 2002)
(Southwick, J.) (citing Wilson v. Allday, 487 So. 2d 793, 796 (Miss. 1986)). Here, the record
evidence is somewhat contradictory as to which of Movant Denbury Operating Company’s
affiliated entities owned, occupied, and/or operated the tank battery, but no evidence suggests
that Movant Denbury Operating Company did so. Thus, Robinson has pointed to no “specific
facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial” as to this threshold issue. Celotex Corp., 477
U.S. at 324.
Lacking evidence that the Movant owned, occupied, or controlled the premises, Robinson
observes that Denbury Operating Company is the sole member of Denbury Onshore, LLC, which
did own and occupy the premises. But Robinson never explores the “difficult task” of piercing

3

the corporate veil under controlling Delaware law.1 See Wallace v. Wood, 752 A.2d 1175, 1185
(Del. Ch. 1999). Denbury Operating Company is entitled to summary judgment.
Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 322.
B.

Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on Punitive Damages Claims [93]

Defendants seek summary judgment on Robinson’s claim for punitive damages, arguing
that their alleged conduct falls short of what is required for such an award. “Punitive damages
may not be awarded if the claimant does not prove by clear and convincing evidence that the
defendant against whom punitive damages are sought acted with actual malice, gross negligence
which evidences a willful, wanton or reckless disregard for the safety of others, or committed
actual fraud.” Miss. Code Ann. § 11-1-65(1)(a). The Court is mindful of Robinson’s heavy
burden in this regard. And while Robinson may not ultimately satisfy this burden, the Court will
decide whether punitive damages should be presented to the jury following a bifurcated
proceeding on the issue of compensatory damages. See Miss. Code Ann. § 11-1-65(1)(b)-(c).
IV.

Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant Denbury Operating Company’s Motion for

Summary Judgment [95] is GRANTED, and Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on
Punitive Damages Claims [93] is DENIED.2

1

See Miss. Code Ann. § 79-29-1001 (“[T]he laws of the state or country or other
jurisdiction under which a foreign limited liability company is organized govern . . . the liability
of its members.”); Compl. [1] ¶ 2 (alleging that Denbury Onshore, LLC, is a Delaware LLC with
its principal place of business in Texas).
2

Two motions remain. Plaintiff’s spoilation motion [82] seeks an adverse inference
instruction and will be addressed at the charge conference based on a more complete record.
Defendants’ motion to exclude, in part, the expert testimony of Charles Dennis, Ph.D., [96] will
be discussed at the pretrial conference.
4

SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this the 22nd day of May, 2012.
s/ Daniel P. Jordan III
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5