Sea Robin Pipeline Co. v. Red Sea Group, Ltd.
| Citation | 919 F. Supp. 991 |
| Decision Date | 19 March 1996 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 94-2107-L. |
| Parties | SEA ROBIN PIPELINE CO. v. RED SEA GROUP, LTD., et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Louisiana |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Patrick W. Gray, Liskow & Lewis, Lafayette, LA, Donald R. Abaunza, Cheryl M. Kornick, Liskow & Lewis, New Orleans, LA, for Sea Robin Pipeline Co., Cockrell Oil & Gas LP, Pogo Producing Co., Pennzoil Exploration Production Co., Mobil Oil Corp., Edisto Exploration Production Co., Sonat Exploration Co., Alma Energy Corp., KE Resources Ltd., Tenneco Ventures Corp.
G. Timmons Alexander, III, Mouton & Alexander, Lafayette, LA, for Neches Gulf Marine Inc., Neches Gulf Offshore Inc., and Neches Gulf Ship Services Inc.
Louis Simon, II, Henry H. LeBas, Laborde & Neuner, Lafayette, LA, for Harold Magee Inc.
Ralph E. Kraft, George D. Ernest, III, Preis Kraft & Roy, Lafayette, LA, for Big Inch Marine Systems Inc.
William B. Schwartz, Burke & Mayer, New Orleans, LA, for Falgout Marine Inc.
Charles M. Steen, Stephanie G. McShane, Phelps Dunbar, New Orleans, LA, for Wimpol Inc.
RULING
Before the Court are Sea Robin Pipeline Company's Motion for Summary Judgment, Harold McGee, Inc.'s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment and Opposition to Sea Robin's Motion for Summary Judgment, and Falgout Marine, Inc.'s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment.
The dispute before the Court arises from a contractual relationship between Sea Robin Pipeline Company ("Sea Robin") and International Diving & Consulting Services, Inc. ("International Diving"). Sea Robin is the owner and operator of a 438-mile dual phase pipeline network located primarily in the Gulf of Mexico, offshore Louisiana.
In May of 1994, Sea Robin hired International Diving to perform certain abandonment procedures on two pieces of pipe within its integrated pipeline system located on the Outer Continental Shelf. Specifically, Sea Robin and International Diving entered into a contract ("the Contract") for the abandonment and removal of certain sections of two pieces of Sea Robin's pipeline — its Ship Shoal Block 225 "C" Pipeline ("225 Pipeline") and its East Cameron Block 270 "A" Pipeline ("270 Pipeline"). The 225 Pipeline and 270 Pipeline are 1.5 miles long and 12.8 miles long, respectively, and they both have 20-inch diameters. The 225 Pipeline extends from the Ship Shoal Block 225 "C" Platform owned by Sonat Exploration Company to a subsea tap connection with Sea Robin's 20-inch pipeline in Ship Shoal Block 222. Sea Robin's 270 Pipeline extends from the Pennzoil Exploration & Producing Company's East Cameron Block 270 "A" Platform to Sea Robin's junction platform in East Cameron Block 265.
Pursuant to the Contract, International Diving was obligated to pay its suppliers and subcontractors, and to keep the property upon which the work was performed free from all liens arising out of the performance of the work or materials furnished in conjunction therewith. Furthermore, International Diving was obligated to indemnify Sea Robin for all liens against its property and for all suits by its suppliers and subcontractors against Sea Robin. In addition, Section 16.1 of the Contract required International Diving to provide Sea Robin with a bond to assure that International Diving's subcontractors and vendors would be paid. In accordance with this provision of the Contract, International Diving provided a bond (the "Bond") issued by Red Sea Group, Ltd., acting through its agent, Individual Surety. The Bond bound Red Sea and Individual Surety to act as surety for all of International Diving's obligations under the Contract, including, but not limited to, all claims of third parties and all other claims and liabilities which International Diving undertakes and agrees in the Contract to pay. The Bond also provided that all persons who have furnished labor or material for use in or about the Contract shall have a direct right of action upon this bond, subject to the obligee's priority.
International Diving completed its work under the Contract in July of 1994. Afterwards, Sea Robin received notice from some of International Diving's suppliers and subcontractors that they had not received payment for services and/or supplies rendered in conjunction with work conducted on the pipeline. Among the suppliers and subcontractors that noted outstanding obligations are: Falgout Marine, Inc. ("Falgout"), Harold McGee, Inc. ("McGee") and Neches-Gulf Marine, Inc., Neches-Gulf Offshore, Inc. and Neches-Gulf Ship Services, Inc. (collectively "Neches-Gulf"). Falgout provided a tug for towing services performed in connection with the abandonment procedures on Sea Robin's 225 Pipeline and 270 Pipeline; McGee furnished a tank barge, tug and other equipment relating to its barging services for modification of Sea Robin's 225 Pipeline and 270 Pipeline; and Neches-Gulf furnished various services and equipment to International Diving in connection with the abandonment of Sea Robin's 270 Pipeline.
After receiving notification of the delinquencies, Sea Robin filed an action in November of 1994 seeking a declaratory judgment against Red Sea and Individual Surety to clarify their rights and obligations under the Bond. In the action, McGee and Falgout intervened, stating causes of action against the named defendants under rights created by the Bond, and against plaintiff, Sea Robin, on the grounds that the intervenors acquired a lien on, among other things, Sea Robin's pipelines. In a separate action dated May 1995, Neches-Gulf filed a claim against Sea Robin, also asserting a lien on Sea Robin's pipelines. In both suits motions and cross-motions were made for summary judgment to determine the validity of the liens asserted against Sea Robin. The suits were consolidated, and the common question as to the validity of all the liens asserted against Sea Robin were before this Court. While the motions were pending, Sea Robin and Neches-Gulf settled their dispute, so now only the motions and cross-motions involving Falgout and McGee remain before this tribunal.
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure establish the applicable standard for summary judgment. Rule 56(c) of the rules requires the entry of summary judgment "if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). The requirement is that "there be no genuine issue of material fact." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2510, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986) (emphasis in original). A fact is "material" if proof of its existence or non-existence would affect the outcome of the lawsuit under the law applicable to the case. Id. at 248, 106 S.Ct. at 2510. An issue of material fact is "genuine" if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury might return a verdict for the non-moving party. Id. at 257, 106 S.Ct. at 2514-15. Once the party moving for summary judgment has satisfied its burden, then the non-moving party is required to go beyond the pleadings by way of affidavits, depositions, answers to interrogatories, etc., in order to demonstrate specific material facts which give rise to a genuine issue. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324-25, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2553-54, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986); Anderson, 477 U.S. at 250, 106 S.Ct. at 2511. The burden demands more than a mere showing of some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts. It requires the non-moving party to advance "specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Matsushita Elec. Industrial Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 588, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 1356-57, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986). If the non-moving party fails to meet its burden, then summary judgment must be entered in favor of the moving party as a matter of law.
The liens asserted against Sea Robin are premised on the Louisiana Oil, Gas and Water Well Lien Act ("the Lien Act"), which bestows a lien in favor of persons who perform work or furnish supplies in connection with the drilling or operation of oil, gas and water wells. Sea Robin asserts three defenses in the alternative: (1) that the Lien Act is inapplicable, (2) that the facts do not support a lien under the Lien Act, and (3) that the lien claimants failed to preserve their liens. We address each defense in sequence.
First, Sea Robin contends the issues in this case, which arise from work performed on the Outer Continental Shelf, are governed by federal maritime law, not state law. Sea Robin would prefer that state law be inapplicable to the case because then it would not be subjected to the Louisiana Oil, Gas and Water Well Lien Act — a state statute. It is clear that the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act ("OCSLA") governs issues arising from activities on the Outer Continental Shelf, and thus, the Lien Act applies, if at all, by operation of the OCSLA. The OCSLA provides in pertinent part:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
La. Crawfish Producers Assoc.-W. v. Amerada Hess Corp.
...maritime.’ ” Union Texas Petroleum v. PLT Engineering, 895 F.2d 1043, 1049 (5th Cir.1990); Sea Robin Pipeline Co. v. Red Sea Group, Ltd., 919 F.Supp. 991, 996 (W.D.La.1996). As these are the only alleged types of acts pled by the plaintiffs against the Dismissed Defendants, and as the proce......
-
Clark v. America's Favorite Chicken Co.
... ... & Reese, New Orleans, LA, for Frank Belatti, Belatti Consulting Group, Ltd ... MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ... SEAR, ... ...