Opinion
Civil Action No. 03-1230 Section "K" (4).
July 21, 2004
Before the Court is a Motion for Partial New Trial on the Issue of Damages (Rec. Doc. 64) filed by plaintiffs Baker Hughes Oilfield Operations and Underwriters-at-Interest on Cover Note No. 334101. Having reviewed the pleadings, memoranda, trial testimony, and relevant law, the Court DENIES plaintiffs' motion for reasons stated below.
I. BACKGROUND
On January 30, 2002, a collision occurred on the Calcasieu River when the M/V SEABULK CHALLENGE and the M/V HR HUGHES unsuccessfully attempted a port-to-port passing. Plaintiffs Baker Hughes Oilfield Operations, Inc. ("BHOO") and Edison Chouest Offshore, L.L.C. ("ECO") and defendant Seabulk Tankers, Inc. ("Seabulk") suffered significant damages as a result of the accident.
Trial in this matter commenced on April 20, 2004 before the Court without a jury. On April 21, 2004, trial concluded and, in open court, the Court dictated Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law into the record regarding all issues except damages, upon which the Court deferred its ruling. The Court then rendered a written ruling on damages (Rec. Doc. 62) and a Judgment (Rec. Doc. 63) on June 8, 2004. Therein, the Court found damages in this matter as follows:
Seabulk Total Damages: $34,000.00
ECO Total Damages: $76,000.00
BHOO (1) Outside Vendor Costs: $625,360.48 (2) Transportation Costs: $9,694.66 (3) Loss of Inventory Costs: $46,345.96 (4) BHOO Repair Personnel: $70,655.86 (5) Charter Hire for 3 days: $30,000.00
On June 21, 2004, BHOO filed the instant motion requesting new trial limited to the issue of damages. Specifically, BHOO challenges the Court's finding as to BHOO's repair personnel costs of $70,655.86 and charter hire losses of $30,000.00.
II. LAW ANALYSIS
The Court considers the applicable standards for new trial in a non-jury case pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(a) and for amended findings pursuant to Rule 52(b). Rule 59(a) provides that a new trial may be granted "in an action tried without a jury, for any of the reasons for which rehearings have heretofore been granted in suits in equity in the courts of the United States." A motion for new trial in a non-jury case or a petition for rehearing should be based upon manifest error of law or mistake of fact, and a judgment should not be set aside except for substantial reasons. Tolliver v. Naor, 2003 WL 21634477, *1 (E.D.La. 2003); see 11 Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller Mary Kay Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure, § 2804 (1995). Furthermore, the Court has recognized that "[r]econsideration of a judgment is an extraordinary remedy which courts should use sparingly." See Peterson v. CIGNA Group Ins., 2002 WL 1268404, at *2; Fields v. Pool Offshore, Inc., 1998 WL 43217 (E.D.La. 1998); Bardwell v. Sharp, 1995 WL 517120, at 1 (E.D.La. 1995).
Rule 52(a) does not require that the district court set out findings on all factual questions that arise in a case. Valley v. Rapides Parish School Bd., 118 F.3d 1047, 1053-54 (5th Cir. 1997). Rather, the district court is expected to provide a clear understanding of the analytical process by which ultimate findings were reached. Id.; see Wright Miller, § 2582. Rule 52(b) provides the district court the opportunity to correct any manifest errors of law or fact; a party who has failed to prove his strongest case is not entitled to a second opportunity by moving to amend a particular finding of fact or conclusion of law. Wright Miller § 2582.
In consideration of this motion, the Court has carefully reviewed the trial testimony, exhibits, and relevant law. A new trial is not appropriate here because the Court has made no manifest error of law or mistake of fact and defendants have offered no substantial reason in favor of new trial. Thus, plaintiffs' motion must be denied.
BHOO challenges the Court's award of damages for repair personnel costs of $70,655.86 on the grounds that it omits the costs of BHOO's salaried employees. BHOO seeks an additional $22,729.46 in compensation for costs incurred due to the work of salaried employees Carroll Newman, Charles Knighten, Brett Collins, and Gerald Blanchard.
Having reviewed the trial testimony in detail, the Court upholds its Judgment as to repair personnel costs and declines to award the requested increase of $22,729.46. At trial, BHOO executive Tommy Vannoy testified that the salaried employees who worked on repairing the vessel would have been payed under any circumstances. BHOO did not prove that the underlying collision and resulting repairs resulted in any loss regarding the salaried employees, other than day rate bonuses. The salaries disputed here were not the only salaries paid to BHOO employees who worked to repair the vessel. According to Vannoy's testimony, BHOO supervisors Luke LeGrande and Randy Murray were paid monthly salaries while repairing the vessel, as well as "day rate" bonuses for each day they worked on the vessel. The Court awarded BHOO damages for the "day rate" bonuses, but did not award salaries because they would have been paid under any conditions. BHOO did not pay bonuses to employees Newman, Knighten, Collins, and Blanchard; therefore, there was no loss concerning these salaried employees. Consequently, BHOO is not entitled to recover the costs of paying its employees monthly salaries.
BHOO's motion is likewise without merit as to its loss of charter hire claim. Again, BHOO has failed to meet its burden under Rule 59. The trial testimony indicated, with reasonable certainty, that BHOO lost three days of charter hire combined as a result of losing the El Paso and Samedan jobs. However, no other lost charter jobs were proven at trial. As far as the evidence showed, the vessel could have been idle all but three days it was under repair and BHOO would have still been required to pay the charter fee whether BHOO scheduled jobs or not. Thus, the Court upholds its ruling that BHOO's loss of charter hire damages total only $30,000.00, three days of lost charter hire. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that plaintiffs' Motion for Partial New Trial on the Issue of Damages (Rec. Doc. 64) is hereby DENIED.