United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana
For Kenny Fairley, Plaintiff: Frank E. Lamothe, III, LEAD ATTORNEY, Richard Massie Martin, Jr., Lamothe Law Firm, LLC (New Orleans), New Orleans, LA.
For Murphy Exploration and Production Company, Defendant: James Robert Silverstein, LEAD ATTORNEY, Brett P. Fenasci, Kean Miller LLP (New Orleans), New Orleans, LA.
ORDER AND REASONS
MARTIN L. C. FELDMAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
The defendant, Murphy Exploration & Production Company, moves for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, dismissing the plaintiff's claim on the ground that the plaintiff was a " borrowed employee" of Murphy at the time of his injury and that Murphy is immune from tort liability pursuant to the provisions of the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, 33 U.S.C. § 901, et. seq. For the reasons that follow, this motion is GRANTED.
The plaintiff, Kenny Fairley, was hired by Wood Group Production Services, Inc. as a mechanic's helper in September 2012. Wood Group is in the business of supplying labor of many types to oil and gas producers. The plaintiff was assigned to work for Murphy on its offshore platform the Front Runner in the Gulf of Mexico.
Aboard the Front Runner, the plaintiff worked with Mike Cancienne, a Wood Group mechanic. He slept and ate on the Front Runner, and Murphy provided his transportation to and from shore, as well as his tools. Wood Group supplied his uniform, hard hat, and boots, and provided him with substantial training before he began working for Murphy. Murphy paid Wood Group for the labor the plaintiff performed, and Wood Group paid the plaintiff.
On his tenth day working on Front Runner, the plaintiff was injured while climbing down from his bunk bed late at night. In November 2013, he brought this suit seeking damages for his injuries.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 instructs that summary judgment is proper if the record discloses no genuine dispute as to any material fact such that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. No genuine dispute of fact exists if the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the non-moving party. See Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio., 475 U.S. 574, 586, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986). A genuine dispute of fact exists only " if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the non-moving party." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986).
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,
477 U.S. 317
106 S.Ct. 2548
Donaghey v. Ocean Drilling & ...