JJ Water Works, Inc. v. San Juan Towing & Marine Servs., Inc.

Decision Date23 September 2014
Docket NumberCivil No. 13–01293 BJM.
Citation59 F.Supp.3d 380
PartiesJJ WATER WORKS, INC., Plaintiff, v. SAN JUAN TOWING AND MARINE SERVICES, INC., Defendant.
CourtU.S. District Court — District of Puerto Rico

Herbert W. Brown, III, Law Office of Herbert W. Brown, Diana L. Pagan–Rosado, San Juan, PR, for Plaintiff.

Ian P. Carvajal–Zarabozo, Manuel Sosa–Baez, Saldana, Carvajal & Velez–Rive, PSC, San Juan, PR, for Defendant.

OPINION AND ORDER

BRUCE J. McGIVERIN, United States Magistrate Judge.

JJ Water Works, Inc. (JJ) sued San Juan Towing and Marine Services, Inc. (SJT) in admiralty. Docket No. 1 (“Compl.”). JJ claims that it leased a barge to SJT and that SJT is liable for charter hire owed, for the cost of repairs to the barge, and for the cost to JJ of the period during which the barge was out of operation while awaiting repairs. Id. SJT denied all liability and made three counterclaims, alleging that JJ (1) breached the charter agreement; (2) breached the implied warranty of seaworthiness; and (3) tortuously interfered with another SJT contract under 31 L.R.P.A. § 5141. Docket No. 10 (“Answer,” “Countercl.” starting at 8). JJ moved for summary judgment on SJT's counterclaims, SJT opposed, JJ replied, and SJT surreplied. Docket Nos. 26, 27 (“Pl.'s Mem.”), 37 (“Def.'s Mem.”), 44 (“Reply”), 50 (“Sur.”). For the following reasons, JJ's motion is granted in part and denied in part.

SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD

Summary judgment is appropriate when “the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). A fact is material only if it “might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law,” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986), and [a] ‘genuine’ issue is one that could be resolved in favor of either party.” Calero–Cerezo v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 355 F.3d 6, 19 (1st Cir.2004). The court does not weigh the facts, but instead ascertains whether the “evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Leary v. Dalton, 58 F.3d 748, 751 (1st Cir.1995).

[A] party seeking summary judgment always bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of the [evidence] ... which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.” Crawford–El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 600 n. 22, 118 S.Ct. 1584, 140 L.Ed.2d 759 (1998) (quoting Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986) ); Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)(1). If this threshold is met, the opponent “must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts” to avoid summary judgment. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986). The nonmoving party may not prevail with mere “conclusory allegations, improbable inferences, and unsupported speculation” for any element of the claim. Medina–Muñoz v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.,

896 F.2d 5, 8 (1st Cir.1990). Still, the court draws inferences and evaluates facts “in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party,” Leary, 58 F.3d at 751, and the court must not “superimpose [its] own ideas of probability and likelihood (no matter how reasonable those ideas may be) upon the facts of the record.” Greenburg v. P.R. Mar. Shipping Auth., 835 F.2d 932, 936 (1st Cir.1987).

BACKGROUND

This summary of the facts is guided by the parties' Local Rule 56 statements of uncontested facts. See Docket Nos. 27 (“SUMF”), 36 (“OSMF,” “SAMF” starting at 5), 45 (“RSMF” starting at 2).1

JJ is a Puerto Rico corporation, owned in equal shares by Juan M. Labrador, its president, and José Caballero, its secretary. SUMF ¶¶ 1; SAMF ¶¶ 80, 81, 83. Its principal place of business is Ceiba, Puerto Rico. SUMF ¶ 1. SJT is also a Puerto Rico corporation, with its principal place of business in the Port of San Juan, Puerto Rico. SUMF ¶ 3. Mark Payne is SJT's vice president. SUMF ¶ 14.

The Charter

SJT contracted with Dragados USA, Inc. (“Dragados”), to provide dredging services on the Puerto Nuevo River, and so chartered from JJ a barge, the Caribe Lifter, which came equipped with a crane. SUMF ¶¶ 3, 5–7, 11, 12; SAMF ¶ 104; see Docket No. 27–2 (Charter). The crane was, in fact, an essential component of the chartered vessel; the parties considered it to be “part of the barge.” SAMF ¶ 104. JJ itself had no contractual relationship with Dragados. SAMF ¶ 89. The parties were familiar with each other: SJT had rented the Caribe Lifter and its crane from JJ in the summer of 2012 for a job off the coast of Mona Island (the Mona Project), which ended less than a month before the charter at issue here. SUMF ¶¶ 8–9.

That charter was memorialized in a purchase order2 executed on November 21, 2012, after Labrador had reviewed its terms without objection. SUMF ¶¶ 4, 7; SAMF ¶¶ 85–86. Payne was the drafter, though not every term came from SJT; with some exceptions, the record is unclear as to which party proposed which provisions. SUMF ¶ 14; SAMF ¶ 87. JJ agreed to lease the Caribe Lifter at a daily rate of $2,500 from November 22, when it would be delivered in San Juan, through January 15, 2013, at which point the parties could agree in writing to extend the charter. SUMF ¶¶ 6; Charter ¶¶ 1–4. The daily rate included the services of Victor Mujica, a JJ employee, as barge superintendent, or “deck boss.” Charter ¶ 5; SAMF ¶¶ 1–14.

Under the charter, SJT was to conduct an “on hire survey” of the barge within five work days of its arrival in San Juan, as well as an inspection of the crane and its machinery. SUMF ¶¶ 10, 11; Charter ¶¶ 7–8. As to the crane inspection, SJT would “point out in writing any discrepancies” within five days of delivery. SUMF ¶ 11; Charter ¶ 8. SJT was obligated to return the barge and crane in as good condition as when delivered, “fair wear and tear not affecting normal operation excepted.” SUMF ¶ 12, 15; Charter ¶ 10. The charter did not, by its terms, explicitly allocate liability for major repairs, whether to the barge itself or to the crane. SUMF ¶ 13.

Condition and Performance of the Barge3

Some welding was performed on the barge prior to the charter. SAMF ¶ 38; RSMF ¶ 38. SJT states that this work was done specifically because of the charter; JJ disagrees, disclaiming any causal connection. SAMF ¶ 38; RSMF ¶ 38. Two days after delivery, an independent company conducted an on hire survey of the barge and prepared a written report. SUMF ¶ 16.

The parties disagree on whether welding or other maintenance was performed during the term of the charter. SJT claims that before the barge could navigate up the Puerto Nuevo, welding was required inside the barge for reinforcement. SAMF ¶¶ 47, 50, 53, 56–57. Mujica performed the welding with the assistance of Melquis Muñoz, an employee of SJT. SAMF ¶¶ 45, 47–50. Mujica is not a certified welder; Muñoz is. SAMF ¶¶ 39, 45; RSMF ¶ 39. According to Muñoz, the interior of the barge was in poor condition at the start of the charter, and without the reinforcement work the barge would not, in his opinion, have been able to hold the weight of the crane. SAMF ¶¶ 51, 57. But JJ states that all this welding, and the observations of Muñoz, actually occurred during the Mona Project, before JJ ever chartered the barge to SJT for use in dredging the Puerto Nuevo. RSMF ¶¶ 47–57.

The parties do agree that, during the post-charter period in issue, pad eyes were installed on the barge, and the barge's winches were reinforced. SAMF ¶¶ 33–34. JJ states that both procedures were improvements, rather than repairs. RSMF ¶¶ 33–34.

Condition and Performance of the Crane

Two days after delivery, after the barge was set up and ready for use, Payne and a crane operator conducted a walkthrough inspection of the crane. SUMF ¶ 17. They did not make a report because, according to Payne, the inspection turned up “nothing significant.” Id. By this time, the barge was fully set up, and SJT was able to begin using it for the Puerto Nuevo dredging operation. SUMF ¶ 18.

The operation did not run smoothly; nor did the crane. Muñoz testified that he observed the crane to be in poor operating condition when he first started working on it, OSMF ¶ 58, though it is unclear when exactly that was.4 In any case, from close to the start of the charter in November on through January, the crane repeatedly manifested mechanical problems that prevented its use and required repairs. SAMF ¶¶ 15–29, 59–61, 63–71, 74–75, 103, 105, 107; see Countercl. ¶¶ 14–21. SJT paid for all the necessary repairs. SAMF ¶ 32. When the crane was broken down or undergoing repairs, SJT could not use it, as intended, for dredging, and the several delays proved a source of friction between SJT and Dragados, the general contractor for the dredging project. SAMF ¶ 124.

The parties dispute, in minor part, the extent of work done on the crane immediately prior to the charter, after the Mona Project was complete, and there are no records to settle the issue. SAMF ¶ 40. All agree that Mujica performed routine maintenance on the crane, consisting of checking the cables, oil, and greasing. SAMF ¶ 43; RSMF ¶ 43. JJ claims that Mujica also took unspecified additional steps to put the crane in working order. RSMF ¶ 43.

Role of Mujica

The charter terms providing for Mujica's position as barge superintendent were proposed by JJ. SAMF ¶ 88. During the charter period, while serving as deck boss aboard the barge, Mujica remained an employee of JJ and considered Labrador and Caballero his bosses. SAMF ¶¶ 9, 11, 13. JJ paid Mujica for his services aboard the barge, though this fact is qualified by JJ's statement that SJT was responsible for paying Mujica's overtime wages, and that Mujica was not required to inform JJ about his overtime work. SAMF ¶¶ 14, 90; RSMF ¶ 14.

As deck boss, Mujica was in charge of the maintenance of the barge and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Fed. Ins. Co. v. Speedboat Racing Ltd., Civil Action No. 3:12-cv-1480 (CSH)
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut
    • August 9, 2016
    ...warranty generally extends through[out] the entirePage 42 charter term." JJ Water Works, Inc. v. San Juan Towing & Marine Servs., Inc., 59 F. Supp. 3d 380, 395 (D.P.R. 2014). See also Matter of P & E Boat Rentals, Inc., 872 F.2d 642, 647 (5th Cir. 1989) ("a time charterer who has no control......
  • Fed. Ins. Co. v. Speedboat Racing Ltd.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut
    • August 9, 2016
    ...a set term of time, "the warranty generally extends through [out] the entire charter term." JJ Water Works, Inc. v. San Juan Towing & Marine Servs., Inc., 59 F.Supp.3d 380, 395 (D.P.R.2014). See also Matter of P & E Boat Rentals, Inc. , 872 F.2d 642, 647 (5th Cir.1989) ("a time charterer wh......
  • Sheeran v. Blyth Shipholding S.A.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey
    • March 27, 2017
    ...v. Navigazione San Paolo, S.P.A. Medafrica Line, 622 F. Supp. 1, 1 (E.D. Pa. 1984)); see also JJ WaterWorks, Inc. v. San Juan Towing and Marine Servs. Inc., 59 F. Supp. 3d 380, 392 (D.P.R. 2014) ("The principal distinction between the [bareboat and time charter] depends on the degree of con......
  • Halliday v. Tiki, Civil No. 2015-85
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Virgin Islands
    • August 19, 2016
    ...relationship existed between KTS, or any other relevant actor, and OM Log."); see also JJ Water Works, Inc. v. San Juan Towing & Marine Servs., Inc., 59 F. Supp. 3d 380, 392 (D.P.R. 2014)("I decline . . . to treat the paragraph in JJ's complaint stating that the contract was a time charter ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT