Cameron Offshore Boats v. Alpine Ocean Seismic, Civ. A. No. 93-2128.
| Decision Date | 28 September 1994 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 93-2128. |
| Citation | 862 F. Supp. 1578 |
| Parties | CAMERON OFFSHORE BOATS, INC. v. ALPINE OCEAN SEISMIC SURVEYS, Seal Craft Operators, Inc. AGIP Petroleum Co., Inc. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Louisiana |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
H. David Vaughan, II, Lake Charles, LA, for plaintiff.
Larry G. Canada, New Orleans, LA, for defendants.
MEMORANDUM RULING
The original seed from which this suit sprouted was Alpine Ocean Seismic Surveys' ("Alpine") alleged failure to fully reimburse plaintiff for the charter of plaintiff's vessel. Initially, Alpine entered into a contract with co-defendant, Seal Craft Operators, Inc. ("Seal Craft"), wherein the latter agreed to provide a vessel for Alpine's use in conducting seismic surveying operations. Apparently, Seal Craft secured an agreement with Cameron Offshore Boats, Inc. ("Cameron Offshore"), whereby Cameron Offshore provided a vessel, the M/V DEBORAH McCALL, for Alpine's use. Concerned that they would not be reimbursed for the charter of the DEBORAH McCALL, Cameron Offshore filed suit in state court against Alpine and Seal Craft, seeking a total of $121,596.11 for services rendered. To secure its claim, Cameron Offshore attached Alpine's equipment which was aboard the chartered vessel.
On December 14, 1993, Alpine removed the case to federal court. Thereafter, Alpine filed a counter-claim, alleging wrongful seizure and tortious conversion under Louisiana law resulting from Cameron Offshore's alleged "self help" in unilaterally seizing Alpine's equipment. On June 24, 1994, Seal Craft was dismissed from the suit in accordance with U.L.L.R. 11.02 W for lack of filing an answer and plaintiff's failure to confirm a default.
In April, 1994, Cameron Offshore amended its petition to add Agip Petroleum Company, Inc. ("Agip"), Santa Fe Energy Operating Partners, Inc. ("Santa Fe Operating") and Santa Fe Energy Resources, Inc. ("Santa Fe Resources"). The amended complaint alleged that these defendants acquired a working interest in several offshore mineral leases, and contracted with Alpine to conduct seismic surveys of the area in search of oil and gas deposits. The amended complaint further stated that to the extent Alpine owed Seal Craft any portion of the open account, said rights were assigned to Cameron Offshore.1 Plaintiff also seeks a writ of sequestration over the oil or gas wells, rigs, and other equipment located within certain offshore leases.
Presently before the court is Agip's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). Also, Cameron Offshore seeks to further amend its complaint to add a nondiverse defendant, and to remand the action to state court. We discuss each in turn.
When considering a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the district court must take factual allegations of the complaint as true and resolve any ambiguities or doubts regarding the sufficiency of the claim in favor of the plaintiff. However, conclusory allegations or legal conclusions masquerading as factual conclusions will not suffice to prevent a motion to dismiss. Unless it appears "beyond a doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which entitle him to relief', the complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim, and leave to amend should be liberally granted.
Fernandez-Montes v. Allied Pilots Asso., 987 F.2d 278, 284 (5th Cir.1993) (citations omitted).
Moreover, in considering a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, a district court's inquiry is limited to the contents of the complaint. Watermeier v. Continental Oil Co., 818 F.Supp. 929, 231 (E.D.La.1993). When a court considers material outside the pleadings, a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) should be converted into a motion for summary judgment under Rule 56. Triplett v. Heckler, 767 F.2d 210, 212 (5th Cir.1985) cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1104, 106 S.Ct. 889, 88 L.Ed.2d 923 (1986).
Agip's motion alleges that, 1) the Louisiana Oil Well Lien Act ("LOWLA"), La.R.S. 9:4861 et seq., does not encompass the factual situation in this case and/or 2) the property described in the lien was not reasonably subject to identification.2
It is well settled in Louisiana that statutes creating privileges and liens are in derogation of common rights and must be construed stricti juris, but this does not mean strained or unnatural construction. It means a fair, reasonable and natural interpretation by the ordinary rules for the construction of statutes with the cardinal object of ascertaining the intention of the legislature.
Continental Cas. Co. v. Associated Pipe & Supply Co., 279 F.Supp. 490 (E.D.La.1967) (citations omitted) affirmed in part and vacated in part (on other grounds), 447 F.2d 1041 (5th Cir.1971).
In addressing whether the act encompasses the factual situation in this case, we turn to the pertinent language of the statute itself:
In plaintiff's amended petition, they state that Alpine conducted seismic surveys in connection with the "search of oil and gas". In their opposition memorandum, plaintiff asserts that the surveys were conducted in anticipation of future pipelines. To the extent that the surveying was conducted to provide the necessary groundwork prior to installation of a rig or pipeline, then it would fall under the broad, "in connection with" language of the statute. The Fifth Circuit has upheld § 9:4861 liens in situations where the owners of a crew boat transported pipeline workers; and a caterer who furnished food and lodging for pipeline construction. Continental Cas. Co. v. Associated Pipe & Supply Co., 447 F.2d 1041 (5th Cir.1971); see also, C.F. Dahlberg & Co., Inc. v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 836 F.2d 915, 918 (5th Cir.1988) (citing, Continental Cas. Co., with approval). As the case stands now, the pleadings indicate that the survey work, and the accompanying vessel charter, fall under the "broad and comprehensive coverage" of LOWLA. C.F. Dahlberg, 836 F.2d at 918.3
We also find no merit to Agip's second contention that the liens are not "reasonably subject to identification" as required by La.R.S. 9:4862. The only evidence which we have concerning the description of the property subject to the lien is contained in paragraph 4(b) of plaintiff's first supplemental and amending complaint. Listed are several block numbers and the equipment and appurtenances located thereon. Movant urges us to find that this description is insufficient to reasonably identify the lien. In Mercantile National Bank v. J. Thomas Driscoll, Inc., 195 So. 497, 502; 194 La. 935 (La.1940), the supreme court upheld the validity of a lien which described all of the lots in a subdivision, even though the evidence only supported a lien over some of the lots.4 Similarly in this case, the lien encompasses several offshore blocks, yet only pertains to the equipment and interests of the leaseholders enumerated in the petition. We find no merit to Agip's second prong of its motion to dismiss. The motion to dismiss is DENIED.
Federal court jurisdiction in this case is presently predicated upon diversity of citizenship. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. In its motion to amend, plaintiff seeks to add CNG Producing Company ("CNG"), a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Louisiana. The amendment, if granted, would destroy our diversity jurisdiction. The motion to amend need not be problematic, however, if an alternative basis exists for federal court jurisdiction. In this regard, defendants argue that plaintiff's complaint arises under admiralty jurisdiction, or alternatively, federal question jurisdiction attaches under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act ("OCSLA") 43 U.S.C. §§ 1331-1356.
The district courts shall have original jurisdiction, exclusive of the courts of the states, of:
(1) Any civil case of admiralty or maritime jurisdiction, saving to suitors in all cases all other remedies to which they are otherwise entitled.
28 U.S.C. § 1333, in pertinent part.
The so-called "savings to suitors" clause permits plaintiffs to bring their admiralty and maritime claims in state court if they so choose. Baris v. Sulpicio Lines, Inc., 932 F.2d 1540, 1542 (5th Cir.) cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 112 S.Ct. 430, 116 L.Ed.2d 449 (1991). Ordinarily, suits brought in state court pursuant to the "savings to suitors" clause are non-removable, in the absence of diversity jurisdiction. Id. In the case sub judice, diversity jurisdiction existed and provided the basis for removal. Plaintiff's proposed amendment to add a non-diverse defendant, however, would dissolve diversity jurisdiction. Yet, the facts within the complaint reveal a maritime nexus which may...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Brooks Mays Music Co.
...see also Amoco Production Co. v. Sea Robin Pipeline Co., 844 F.2d 1202, 1205 (5th Cir.1988); Cameron Offshore Boats, Inc. v. Alpine Ocean Seismic Surveys, 862 F.Supp. 1578 (D.La.1994). Nevertheless, many courts have either blindly applied the well pleading complaint rule in the context of a......
-
Lewis v. Johnlewis
... ... (E.D. La. Nov. 13, 2019); Cameron Offshore Boats, Inc. v ... Alpine Ocean ... ...
-
Thommassie v. Antill Pipeline Constr. Co.
...Inc., 702 F.2d 585, 587 (5th Cir. 1983) (quoting FED. R. CIV. P. 9(h)(1)). For instance, the district court in Cameron Offshore Boats, Inc. v. Alpine Ocean Seismic Surveys, held that an action that had been removed on the basis of diversity jurisdiction could not then be sustained by admira......
-
BNA Marine Servs. v. Safe Marine Assurance LLC
... ... Fed.R.Civ.P. 9(h). To ... invoke the admiralty ... Offshore Marine Contractors, Inc., 9 F.4th 289, 294 (5th ... contract. Compare Cameron Offshore Boats, Inc. v. Alpine ... Ocean ... ...