Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Abadie v. Madere

United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana

November 13, 2017

JOSEPH M. ABADIE AND AMY ABADIE
v.
MADERE AND SONS MARINE SERVICES, LLC, DEEP SOUTH OILFIELD CONSTRUCTION, LLC, BRAMMER ENGINEERING, INC., CRAIG GAUTREAUX AND ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE CO.

         SECTION "S"

          ORDER AND REASONS

          MARY ANN VIAL LEMMON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. #16) is GRANTED as to striking the jury demand made by defendants, Brammer Engineering, Inc. and Zurich American Insurance Company.

         IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. #16) is DENIED as to striking the workers' compensation affirmative defense raised by defendants, Brammer Engineering, Inc. and Zurich American Insurance Company.

         BACKGROUND

         This matter is before the court on a motion for judgment on the pleadings filed by plaintiffs, Joseph and Amy Abadie. Plaintiffs seek an order striking the jury demand made by defendants, Brammer Engineering, Inc. and Zurich American Insurance Company. Plaintiffs also seek an order striking Brammer and Zurich's affirmative defense of workers' compensation tort immunity.

         Plaintiffs allege that on July 19, 2016, Joseph was employed by defendants, Madere and Sons Marine Services, LLC and/or Deep South Oilfield Construction, LLC. Joseph was assigned to work as the captain of the M/V MAMMA MIA, a crew boat in navigation owned and operated by Madere and Deep South. Joseph was instructed to sail the M/V MAMMA MIA to a production platform in the Main Pass Block 49 Field in Louisiana state territorial waters. The production platform was owned and operated by Brammer.

         When the vessel arrived at the production platform, Joseph was informed by the platform well site supervisor, defendant Craig Gautreaux, that the vessel had to take a tote tank containing liquid oilfield waste and weighting approximately 4, 600 pounds from the platform to shore. Joseph advised Gautreaux that the tote take was too big and heavy to be safely offloaded from the production platform onto the M/V MAMMA MIA, but Gautreaux insisted on using the M/V MAMMA MIA to do the job.

         Geautreaux operated the production platform's crane to lower the tote tank onto the stern deck of the M/V MAMMA MIA. During the process, the tote tank swung toward the vessel's bow, striking Joseph and pinning him against the bulkhead between the stern deck and the wheelhouse. Joseph alleges that he sustained multiple injuries as a result of the accident, including bruises and abrasions and injuries to his spine, shoulder and connective joints, tissues and nerves.

         On July 13, 2017, plaintiffs filed this action against Madere, Deep South, Brammer, Gautreaux and Zurich seeking damages for the injuries Joseph allegedly sustained as a result of the July 19, 2016, accident. Plaintiffs allege that Madere and Deep South are liable for negligence under the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C. § 30104, et seq., and for the unseaworthiness of the M/V MAMMA MIA under the general maritime law. Plaintiffs also allege that Brammer and Gautreaux are liable for negligence under the general maritime law. In the alternative, plaintiffs allege that Joseph was a maritime employee covered by the Longshore and Harbor Workers Compensation Act (“LHWCA”), 33 U.S.C. § 901, et seq. Further, plaintiffs allege that Brammer and Gautreaux are liable for Amy's loss of consortium and society. Finally, plaintiffs allege that Zurich is liable as the insurer of Brammer and Gautreaux. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint alleging that their claims are maritime claims that arise under Rule 9(h) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

         Brammer and Zurich filed an answer demanding a jury trial. Brammer and Zurich also raise an affirmative defense that Joseph's exclusive remedy against them lies in workers' compensation. Plaintiffs filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings seeking an order striking Brammer and Zurich's jury demand and workers' compensation defense. Plaintiffs argue that they are entitled to a bench trial because they pleaded that their claims arise under this court's admiralty jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 9(h). They also argue that Joseph was not employed by Brammer, thus his remedies against Brammer and its insurer, Zurich, are not limited to workers' compensation.

         ANALYSIS

         I. Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

         A party may move for judgment on the pleadings after an answer has been filed. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(c). "The standard for dismissal under Rule 12(c) is the same as that for dismissal for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6).” Chauvin v. State Farm & Cas. Co., 495 F.3d 232, 237 (5th Cir. 2007). “To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the plaintiff must plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” In re Katrina Canal Breaches Litig., 495 F.3d 191, 205 (5th Cir. 2007) (quoting Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964-65 & 1973 n.14 (2007)). “Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level, on the assumption that all the allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact).” Id. at 1965. The court “must accept all well-pleaded facts as true and view them in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.” In re S. Scrap ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.