Opinion
NO. 2018 CW 1138
02-04-2019
JORDAIN MICHAEL BRASSEAUX v. MONCLA MARINE OPERATIONS, LLC, ET AL
In Re: Moncla Marine Operations, LLC, Moncla Marine, LLC, Gulfport Energy Corporation, and Pro-T Company, Inc., applying for supervisory writs, 16th Judicial District Court, Parish of St. Mary, No. 128101. BEFORE: GUIDRY, McDONALD, CRAIN, HOLDRIDGE, AND LANIER, JJ.
WRIT GRANTED. In support of their motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of claims by plaintiff, a Jones Act seaman, based on the res judicata effect of a settlement and release, defendants submitted affidavits and the transcript of the settlement conference that includes an extensive and comprehensive colloquy between plaintiff and the claims adjuster regarding plaintiff's understanding of his actions in executing the settlement. Defendant's evidence demonstrates there is no genuine issue of material fact that plaintiff settled his claims freely and with full understanding of his rights, and the effects of his actions. See Buras v. Sea Supply, Inc., 2015-1307, 2016 WL 854132, *2 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2/29/16); Steverson v. GlobalSantaFe Corp., 508 F.3d 300, 303 (5th Cir. 2007). The evidence plaintiff submitted in opposition to the motion fails to create any genuine issues of material fact that would preclude summary judgment. A contrary finding would undermine confidence in the finality of any settlement agreement and deter employers from engaging in settlement negotiations. See Borne v. A & P Boat Rentals No. 4, Inc., 780 F.2d 1254, 1257 (5th Cir. 1986). The trial court's judgment denying the motion for summary judgment is reversed and the motion for summary judgment filed by defendants is granted, dismissing the plaintiff's claims against Moncla Marine LLC, Moncla Marine Operations, LLC, Gulfport Energy Corporation, and Pro-T Company, Inc.
JMM
WJC
WIL
Guidry and Holdridge, JJ., dissent and would deny the writ. Because seamen are wards of admiralty, releases or settlements involving seamen are subject to careful scrutiny. Buras v. Sea Supply, Inc., 2015-1307 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2/29/16) 2016 WL 854132, *2. The federal jurisprudence has placed a heavy burden on the ship-owner to conclusively demonstrate the capacity of the seaman and to demonstrate the absence of genuine issues of material fact. Id. In this case, the defendants had the burden of proving that there were no genuine issues of fact that the seaman executed the release freely and with a full understanding of his rights and the effects and consequences of his actions.
The trial court, and this court, in its de novo review, are not to consider the merits, make credibility determinations, evaluate testimony, or weigh evidence when ruling on a motion for summary judgment. Robertson v. Doug Ashy Bldg. Materials, Inc., 2014-0141 (La. App. 1st Cir. 12/23/14), 168 So.3d 556, writ denied, 2015-0364 (La. 4/24/15), 169 So.3d 365. A determination of the plaintiff's capacity to enter into a settlement is a question which demands the court to weigh the evidence of the experts and to determine the capacity and credibility of the plaintiff. Since neither party filed for a motion under La. C.C.P. art. 1425(f), the affidavits of the plaintiff's experts should be considered and the trial court is "statutorily obligated to consider the expert's opinions but, at that point, cannot evaluate the credibility or weight of that evidence." Thompson v. Center for Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, L.L.C., 2017-1088 (La. App. 1st Cir. 3/15/18), 244 So.3d 441. The determinations of credibility and weight of the evidence should be made at a trial on the merits and not on a motion for summary judgment. COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT /s/_________
DEPUTY CLERK OF COURT
FOR THE COURT