Opinion
Civil Action No: 99-2547 Section: "D"(3)
June 6, 2000
MINUTE ENTRY
Before the court are the following motions:
(1) "Motion for Partial Summary Judgment" filed by Defendants, Sea Mar, Inc. ( in personam) and the M/V CAPE RACE, et al ( in rem); and
(2) "Motion for Partial Summary Judgment" filed by Defendants, Montco, Inc. and Montco Offshore, Inc.
Plaintiffs, Crystal Mastrodonato, Toni Ann Mastrodonato and Dustin Mastrodonato, filed a single memorandum in opposition to these motions. The motions, set for hearing on Wednesday, May 31, 2000, are before the court on briefs, without oral argument. Now, having reviewed the memoranda of counsel and the applicable law, the court finds that the motions should be granted.
I. Background
Plaintiff Nicholas Mastrodonato was a Jones Act seaman, employed by Montco, Inc. and/or Montco Offshore, Inc. as a captain of a jack-up vessel (the L/B JAUN) servicing an offshore rig. On or about August 19, 1998, Plaintiff was transported from the jack-up vessel to the shore in Galveston, Texas by the supply vessel, the M/V CAPE RACE. The owner (or owner pro hac vice) and operator of the M/V CAPE RACE was Sea Mar, Inc.
Plaintiff alleges that when he was departing the M/V CAPE RACE, he slipped and fell on the step leading to the aft deck, because the carpeting on this step was "wet, grimy and slippery" and the step (which was metal) was bent. As a result of this fall, Plaintiff claims that he injured his leg and has suffered damages.
Plaintiff initially sued Sea Mar, Inc. ( in personam) and the M/V CAPE RACE ( in rem) asserting negligence claims under the general maritime law. (Complaint, Doc. No. 1). Plaintiff later amended his Complaint to additionally name Montco, Inc. and Montco Offshore, Inc. as Defendants, asserting negligence and unseaworthiness claims against them. (First Supplemental and Amending Complaint, Doc. No. 16).
In Plaintiffs' original Complaint, Plaintiffs allege in part:
The complaint of Nicholas Mastrodonato and Crystal Mastrodonato, residents of LaFourche Parish, Louisiana, bring this claim under the general maritime law and respectfully represent as follows:
At the time of Plaintiff's alleged accident, he was married to Crystal Mastrodonato, and they had two minor children, Toni Ann Mastrodonato and Dustin Joseph Mastrodonato. In this suit, Crystal Mastrodonato has asserted a claim for loss of consortium, and the minor children also have loss of consortium claims asserted on their behalf. Crystal, Toni and Dustin Mastrodonato did not sustain physical injury and they were not present aboard the M/V CAPE RACE at the time of Nicholas Mastrodonato's alleged accident.
II. Legal Analysis
In the Motions for Partial Summary Judgment now before the court, the Defendants move for dismissal of the loss of consortium claims. As a matter of law, it is clear that there is no cause of action against an employer for loss of consortium under the general maritime law. Miles v. Apex Marine Corp., 498 U.S. 19, 111 S.Ct. 317, 112 L.Ed.2d 275 (1990). Thus, all loss of consortium claims asserted against the Montco entities (Nicholas Mastrodonato's Jones Act employer should be dismissed.
As to the loss of consortium claims asserted against Sea-Mar and the M/V CAPE RACE, the court concludes that the uniformity sought by the Court in Miles is best served by a rule that denies loss of consortium damages against a third party (here, Sea-Mar and the M/V CAPE RACE) just as they are denied against a seaman's employer. Such a holding has been predominantly accepted in the Eastern District of Louisiana. See, Trident Marine, Inc. v. M/V ATTICOS, 876 F. Supp. 832 (E.D.La. 1994) (Duval, J.); Ellender v. John E. Graham Co., 821 F. Supp. 1136 (E.D.La. 1992) (Feldman, J.); Carnival Cruise Lines v. Red Fox Industries, Inc., 813 F. Supp. 1185 (E.D.La. 1993) (Clement, J.); Duplantis v. Texaco, Inc., 771 F. Supp. 787 (E.D.La. 1991) (Schwartz, J.). Thus, all loss of consortium claims asserted against Sea Mar and the M/V CAPE RACE should also be dismissed.
The court disagrees with those district courts which have narrowly read Miles and allowed loss of consortium claims against a non-employer, general maritime law defendant. See, In re Denet Towing Service, Inc., 1999 WL 329698 (E.D.La. 1999) (Lemmon, J.); Rebstock v. Sonat Offshore Drilling, 764 F. Supp. 75 (E.D.La. 1991) (Mentz, J.). In Rebstock, the court relied on a pre- Miles Fifth Circuit decision, Tullos v. Resource Drilling, Inc., 750 F.2d 380 (5th Cir. 1986), which was based on case law rejected by Miles.
Accordingly;
IT IS ORDERED that the " Motion for Partial Summary Judgment" filed by Defendants, Sea Mar, Inc. ( in personam) and the M/V CAPE RACE, et al ( in rem) be and is hereby GRANTED, dismissing all loss of consortium claims against these Defendants; and
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the "Motion for Partial Summary Judgment" filed by Defendants, Montco, Inc. and Montco Offshore, Inc. be and is hereby GRANTED, dismissing all loss of consortium claims against these Defendants.
1.
This Court has Admiralty Jurisdiction over this general maritime claim and claimants herein specifically invoke the Supplemental Rules of Admiralty and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 9(h).
(Complaint, Doc. No. 1).
In Plaintiffs' First Supplemental and Amending Complaint, Plaintiffs allege in part:
The Complaint for Damages of Nicholas Mastrodonato and Crystal Mastrodonato, residents of LaFourche Parish, Louisiana, is hereby supplemented and amended as follows:
I.
To replace paragraph one of the original Complaint for Damages as follows:1.
This Court has jurisdiction over this Jones Act claim and claimants herein specifically demand trial by jury on all issues.
(First Supplemental and Amending Complaint, Doc. No. 16).
In Plaintiffs' Opposition Memorandum, Plaintiffs state that Nicholas Mastrodonato "is a Jones Act seaman asserting a claim against a vessel not owned or operated by his employer (a so called third party vessel owner) solely under the general maritime law." (Opp. Memo., p. 1). Further, the Plaintiffs note that:
Montco, Inc. or Montco Offshore, Inc. is the Jones Act employer of Mr. Mastrodonato. The available remedies may differ in the general maritime law claims against Sea Mar, Inc. and the Jones Act claims against the Montco entities. However, the Montco defendants adopted the Motion of Sea Mar in toto, without forwarding additional reasons, law, evaluation or facts. Thus, any distinction between Montco and Sea Mar in the remedies owed to plaintiffs is not before the Court and thus not addressed in this memorandum.
(Opp. Memo, p. 3 at n. 2).
The court finds that Plaintiffs have not clearly pled their claims, but based on the foregoing the court concludes that Plaintiff Nicholas Mastrodonato's claims against Sea Mar and the M/V CAPE RACE are general maritime claims, and his claims against the Montco entities consist of a negligence claim asserted under the Jones Act and an unseaworthiness claim asserted under the general maritime law. The loss of consortium claims are general maritime claims.