Dozier v. Rowan Drilling Co., Inc., CIV. H-04-3475.
| Decision Date | 29 September 2005 |
| Docket Number | No. CIV. H-04-3475.,CIV. H-04-3475. |
| Citation | 397 F.Supp.2d 837 |
| Parties | Herbert DOZIER and Tracey Dozier, Plaintiffs, v. ROWAN DRILLING COMPANY, INC., and Spinnaker Exploration Company L.L.C., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas |
Dennis L Brown, Attorney at Law, Houston, TX, for Herbert Dozier, Tracey Dozier, Plaintiffs.
Kenneth D Kuykendall, Royston Rayzor et al, Steven Lynn Roberts, Fulbright & Jaworski, Robert H Etnyre, Jr, Royston Rayzor et al, Houston, TX, for Rowan Drilling Company, Inc., Spinnaker Exploration Company L.L.C., Defendants.
James R Wetwiska, Akin Gump et al, Houston, TX, for Baker Hughes Inc, Movant.
Pending before the court1 are Defendants' Motion to Strike Jury Demand (Docket Entry No. 25) and Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Their First Amended Complaint (Docket Entry No. 26). The court has considered the motions, all relevant filings, and the applicable law. For the reasons set forth below, the court DENIES Defendants' motion and GRANTS Plaintiffs' motion.
This negligence action arises out of injuries allegedly sustained by Plaintiff Herbert Dozier on December 20, 2003, while he was working on the ROWAN FORT WORTH, a jack-up drilling rig,2 located on the outer Continental Shelf off the coast of Louisiana.3
Plaintiff Herbert Dozier, an employee of Baker Atlas, was performing wireline services, a component of drilling operations, on the rig, which was owned by Defendant Rowan Drilling Company, Inc., and operated by Defendant Spinnaker Exploration Company, L.L.C.4 While he was conducting a wireline test for the open hole drilling, he climbed up on the casing and fell backwards approximately eight feet, landing on his back and head.5
A few weeks later, Plaintiff Herbert Dozier filed a claim for workers' compensation under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act ("OCSLA") and the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act ("LHWCA").6 He began to receive benefits shortly thereafter.7
Plaintiffs filed suit in this court on September 2, 2004, alleging negligence and seeking $750,000 as damages for Plaintiff Herbert Dozier's injuries and $100,000 as damages for Plaintiff Tracey Dozier's loss of consortium.8 In their complaint, Plaintiffs alleged jurisdiction "under the General Maritime Law; 33 U.S.C. [§] 905(b); 28 U.S.C. § 1332,9 and the laws of the State of Texas."10 Plaintiffs requested a jury trial at the time of filing.11 In November, the parties filed their joint discovery/case management plan, which indicated that the parties agreed that jurisdiction in this court was proper under "33 USC § 905 [sic]; Admiralty or General Maritime Law" and that a jury demand was made timely.12 The court set February 4, 2005, as the deadline for amending the pleadings.13
According to Defendants' brief, several months later Defendants' attorney realized that Plaintiffs were not entitled to a jury trial under maritime law and requested that Plaintiffs agree to strike the jury demand.14 Apparently, Plaintiffs refused and, instead, filed their motion for leave to amend four and one-half months after the amendment deadline set by the scheduling order.15 Plaintiffs' proposed First Amended Original Complaint changes the jurisdictional basis to the OCSLA and the laws of the State of Louisiana.16 Additionally, Plaintiffs made several other changes to provide more factual detail, including the specific allegation that Plaintiff Herbert Dozier was performing wireline services related to the exploration and development of natural resources on the outer Continental Shelf off the shore of Louisiana when the alleged injury occurred.17 Plaintiffs also added details to their allegations of negligence and doubled Plaintiff Herbert Dozier's request for damages.18 Defendants oppose this amendment.
Facially, the motions request rulings on Plaintiffs' right to amend and Plaintiffs' right to a jury trial, but the fundamental issue and true point of contention is whether this action is governed by maritime law or Louisiana law.19 The parties acknowledge as much in their briefs.20 Defendants' position is that the application of maritime law would preclude a jury trial. Plaintiffs hold that the cause of action is actually governed by Louisiana state law as surrogate federal law under the OCSLA. Without a doubt, the Fifth Circuit law applicable to the issue is confusing.21 And, frankly, the parties' briefs have not helped to elucidate matters. In fact, their briefs suggest misapprehension, ignorance, or manipulation of relevant case law. Assuming that the problem is misapprehension, the court embarks on an overview of the applicable legal landscape.
The OCSLA, enacted in 1953, separately addresses what legal jurisdiction applies to certain structures and installations on the outer Continental Shelf and what type of compensation is due workers injured as a result of operations on the outer Continental Shelf. See 43 U.S.C. § 1333. As to the first, the OCSLA expanded federal jurisdiction and defined a body of federal law to govern conduct on the outer Continental Shelf. See Rodrigue v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 395 U.S. 352, 355-56, 89 S.Ct. 1835, 23 L.Ed.2d 360 (1969); Hufnagel v. Omega Serv. Indus., 182 F.3d 340, 349 (5th Cir.1999). Although Congress intended for federal law to prevail, it recognized that federal law was inadequate in many areas and needed to be supplemented by state law. See Rodrigue, 395 U.S. at 362-66, 89 S.Ct. 1835; Hufnagel, 182 F.3d at 349. Thus, the OCSLA incorporated applicable state civil and criminal laws as surrogate federal law to the extent that they are "applicable and not inconsistent with" the OCSLA and other federal laws. 43 U.S.C. § 1333(a)(2)(A).
The language of the OCSLA is important in determining the scope of its application and, therefore, is quoted here at length:
(a) Constitution and United States laws; law of adjacent States;...
(1) The Constitution and laws and civil and political jurisdiction of the United States are extended to the subsoil and seabed of the outer Continental Shelf and to all artificial islands, and all installations and other devices permanently or temporarily attached to the seabed, which may be erected thereon for the purpose of exploring for, developing, or producing resources therefrom, or any such installation or other device (other than a ship or vessel) for the purpose of transporting such resources, to the same extent as if the outer Continental Shelf were an area of exclusive Federal jurisdiction located within a State....
(2)(A) To the extent that they are applicable and not inconsistent with this subchapter or with other Federal laws and regulations of the Secretary now in effect or hereafter adopted, the civil and criminal laws of each adjacent State, now in effect or hereafter adopted, amended, or repealed are declared to be the law of the United States for that portion of the subsoil and seabed of the outer Continental Shelf, and artificial islands and fixed structures erected thereon, which would be within the area of the State if its boundaries were extended seaward to the outer margin of the outer Continental Shelf....
43 U.S.C. § 1333(a).
The statute also incorporated compensation benefits of the LHWCA. 43 U.S.C. § 1333(b). The LHWCA is a workers' compensation scheme generally applicable to persons injured during the course of maritime employment upon navigable waters. 33 U.S.C. § 902(3); 903; see also Fontenot v. Dual Drilling Co., 179 F.3d 969, 972 (5th Cir.1999). The OCSLA extended the LHWCA's workers' compensation coverage to include persons injured while performing work connected with exploration and development of natural resources on the outer Continental Shelf, regardless of whether the type of work in which they are engaged can be classified as maritime. See 43 U.S.C. § 1333(b); Fontenot, 179 F.3d at 972. Before the OCSLA, these persons were beyond the geographical reach of state compensation programs and outside the coverage of LHWCA. Again, the language of the statute is significant:
(b) Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act applicable...
With respect to disability or death of an employee resulting from any injury occurring as the result of operations conducted on the outer Continental Shelf for the purpose of exploring for, developing, removing, or transporting by pipeline the natural resources, or involving rights to the natural resources, of the subsoil and seabed of the outer Continental Shelf, compensation shall be payable under the provisions of the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act....
43 U.S.C. § 1333(b).
Although a worker recovering compensation under the LHWCA cannot seek additional payment from his employer, he may recover for injuries resulting from the negligence of third parties. 33 U.S.C. §§ 905, 933(a); see also Fontenot, 179 F.3d at 972. In cases where the injured employee sues a vessel for negligence in causing the injury, "the employer shall not be liable to the vessel for such damages directly or indirectly and any agreements or warranties to the contrary shall be void." 33 U.S.C. § 905(b). If LHWCA coverage applies via the OCSLA, the LHWCA allows employer liability to the extent of reciprocal indemnity agreements by which the employer and the vessel agree to defend and indemnify the other for damages arising out of employee injuries. 33 U.S.C. § 905(c). The statute includes both the owner and the operator in the definition of "vessel." 33 U.S.C. § 902(21).
In a 1969 opinion, the United States Supreme Court discussed the purpose of the OCSLA at length. See Rodrigue, 395 U.S. at 355-66, 89 S.Ct. 1835. Examining the statute as enacted at that time, which extended federal jurisdiction and law to "fixed structures" on the outer Continental Shelf,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Barker v. Hercules Offshore, Inc.
...644 F.2d 1132, 1136–38 (5th Cir.1981); In re Dearborn Marine Serv., Inc., 499 F.2d 263, 272–73 (5th Cir.1974); Dozier v. Rowan Drilling Co., 397 F.Supp.2d 837, 850 (S.D.Tex.2005).5 Navigating this precedent I would conclude that, when determining whether maritime law applies under the secon......
-
McLaurin v. Noble Drilling (Us) Inc.
..."nonmaritime claims are not converted into maritime claims by virtue of the application of [§] 905(b)." Dozier v. Rowan Drilling Co., 397 F.Supp.2d 837, 852 (S.D.Tex.2005) (applying this Court's reasoning in Parker v. South Louisiana Contractors, Inc., 537 F.2d 113, 116-17 (5th Cir.1976)). ......
-
Frederick v. Serv. Experts Heating & Air Conditioning, LLC
...Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)." Mann v. Taser Intl., Inc., 588 F.3d 1291, 1312 (11th Cir. 2009); see also Dozier v. Rowan Drilling Co., Inc., 397 F. Supp. 2d 837, 855 (S.D. Tex. 2005) ("Only upon the movant's demonstration of good cause to modify the scheduling order will the more liberal s......
-
Ray v. Logistics
...2008); Henson v. Odyssea Vessels, Inc., No. 07-613, 2007 WL 3343011, at *1, *2-*3 (E.D. La. 2007); Dozier v. Rowan Drilling Co., Inc., 397 F. Supp. 2d 837, 841, 849-51 (S.D. Tex. 2005); Debellefeuille v. Vastar Offshore, 139 F. Supp. 2d 821, 822, 823-24 (S.D. Tex. 2001); Solet v. CNG Produc......