Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-138, SECTION "N"(5).
April 15, 2002
ORDER AND REASONS GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 12(b) provides in pertinent part that: "If, on a motion asserting the defense numbered (6) to dismiss for failure of a pleading to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, matters outside the pleading are presented to and not excluded by the court, the motion shall be treated as one for summary judgment and disposed of as provided in Rule 56, and all parties shall be given reasonable opportunity to present all material made pertinent to such a motion for Rule 56." Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b).
Defendant TT Boat Corporation ("TT Boat") filed a Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, seeking dismissal of the plaintiffs' claims as barred by the doctrine of res judicata. Plaintiffs, Reynold Kalloo and Tyrone Stevenson, filed formal opposition, to which the defendant replied. The captioned matter presents this Court with a text book case of claims preclusion. The defendant's motion is GRANTED.
UNDISPUTED FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs originally filed suit against TT Boat, inter alia, in the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana, asserting causes of action under the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C. § 688, the general maritime law for unseaworthiness, along with various state and foreign law claims. The state court suit was prosecuted only against TT Boat, since the Louisiana court was without jurisdiction over the Tidewater entities. TT boat filed a Motion for Summary Judgment in the Civil District Court proceeding seeking dismissal of the plaintiffs' state court suit arguing that 46 U.S.C. § 688(b), which precludes actions in United States courts by certain foreign seamen, served to bar plaintiffs' claims. TT Boat's state court motion for summary judment specifically prayed that the above captioned foreign plaintiffs' Jones Act, General Maritime Law, and State law claims be dismissed with prejudice , to wit:
See Plaintiff's State Court "Petition for Damages", assigned CDC No. 97-11365"N", and entitled Kalloo, et al v. TT Boat Corporation, et al [Exh. "1" to TT Boat's Motion to Dismiss].
See TT Boat's Motion for Summary Judgment filed in the state court proceeding [Exhibit "2" to TT Boat's Motion to Dismiss].
Wherefore, defendant, T.T. Boat, prays that its Motion for Summary Judgment be granted and that the foreign plaintiffs' Jones Act, General Maritime Law, State Law claims be dismissed with prejudice, and that their foreign law (Republic of Trinidad-Tobago and Colombia) claims be dismissed without prejudice, subject to the jurisdiction of the courts of either Trinidad-Tobago or Colombia. . . .
Id.
The state trial court denied TT Boat's Motion for Summary Judgment, ignoring Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals precedent in Coto v. J. Ray McDermott, S.A., 709 So.2d 1023 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1998) and Bolan v. Tidewater, Inc., 709 So.2d 1059 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1998).
See Judgment signed February 23, 2001 by Civil District Court Judge Ethel Simms Julien in Dkt. No. 97-13365"N" [Exhibit "4" to T.T. Boat's Motion to Dismiss].
See Ruling of the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal, dated September 25, 2001, granting writs, reversing the lower court, and rendering summary judgment in favor of T.T. Boat Corporation [Exhibit "7" to TT Boat's Motion to Dismiss].
Upon TT Boat's application for supervisory writs and notwithstanding the plaintiffs' opposition to TT Boat's application, the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals granted TT's Boat's writ application, unanimously reversed and granted summary judgment in favor of TT Boat — precisely the same relief requested by that defendant in its motion for summary judgment — dismissing plaintiffs' claims against it ( i.e., with prejudice as to the plaintiffs' Jones Act, General Maritime Law, and State law claims, and without prejudice as to plaintiffs' right to proceed with foreign law claims in foreign venues with jurisdiction over such claims). On January 11, 2002, the Louisiana Supreme Court denied plaintiffs' Application for Writ of Certiorari and Review from the Decision of the Court of Appeal for the Louisiana Fourth Circuit.
See TT Boat's Application for Supervisory Writs to the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal Dkt. No. 2001-C-0539, filed March 16, 2001 [Exhibit "5" to T.T. Boat's Motion to Dismiss].
See Plaintiff's Opposition to TT Boat's Application for Supervisory Writs to the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal [Exhibit "6" to T.T. Boat's Motion to Dismiss].
See Ruling of the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, dated September 25, 2001 [Exhibit "7" to T.T. Boat's Motion to Dismiss].
See Plaintiffs' Application for Writ of Certiorari and Review, filed matter numbered 2001-CC-2860 on the Docket of the Supreme Court for the State of Louisiana [Exhibit "8" to T.T. Boat's Motion to Dismiss]; and January 11, 2002 ruling of the Louisiana Supreme Court denying plaintiffs' writ application filed in La. S.Ct. Docket No. 2001-CC-2860 [Exhibit "10" to T.T. Boat's Motion to Dismiss].
Plaintiffs did not file a writ application with the United States Supreme Court. Instead, the foreign plaintiffs filed an identical complaint in this Court on January 15, 2002, urging the same claims which are the subject of the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal's ruling granting T.T. Boat's Motion for Summary Judgment, seeking dismissal of the plaintiffs' federal and state law claims with prejudice, and dismissal of the plaintiffs' foreign law claims without prejudice to any right they may have to proceed in the foreign jurisdictions aforestated. The foregoing factual and procedural background is not disputed.
Compare Plaintiffs' Statement of the Case and Procedural Background set forth their Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss filed with this Court [Fed.Rec.Doc. No. 3].
Plaintiffs are presently prosecuting an action in the High Court of Justice for Trinidad-Tobago. Additionally, plaintiffs do not dispute that they were paid foreign workers' compensation benefits for injuries alleged received while working aboard the M/V HATCH TIDE, when it collided with an oil pipeline approximately 1.12 mile off the Colombian coast. The Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal's decision granting summary judgment in favor of T.T. Boat notes that the plaintiffs admitted that they were neither citizens nor permanent resident aliens of the United States at the time of the accident at issue. The Louisiana Fourth Circuit further observed the judgment record was uncontroverted in pertinent part ( i.e., regarding the facts that the subject accident occurred in territorial waters overlaying the continental shelf of Colombia (a country other than the U.S.), while the HATCH TIDE was engaged in natural gas pipeline laying operations.
See Writ of Summons No. 1519 of 2000 filed on behalf of the plaintiffs against the Tidewater entities on June 25, 2001 [attachment to T.T. Boat's Supplemental Memorandum in Support of its Motion to Dismiss].
See Exhibit "7" to T.T. Boat's Motion to Dismiss.
The Louisiana Fourth Circuit squarely rejected plaintiffs' contention that they did not have a remedy under foreign law:
We conclude that the trial court erred in denying the motion for summary judgment. . . . It is undisputed that the plaintiffs would have had a remedy under the laws of Colombia had they timely filed suit in that country. Their failure to avail themselves of this remedy was a result of their own inaction. Additionally, the fact that they received worker's compensation benefits from Trinidad-Tobago shows that they had an adequate legal remedy under the laws of the country.
See Exhibit "7" to T.T. Boat's Motion to Dismiss.
ANALYSIS
Assuming without deciding that the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal's ruling granting the defendant's motion was a dismissal "without prejudice," the issues presented are: (I) whether the state court's dismissal without prejudice should have any preclusive effect for future claims in Louisiana and federal court; and (2) whether exceptional circumstances justify relief from res judicata. The disposition of the instant motion is controlled by the decision of the federal Fifth Circuit in Jackson v. North Bank Towing Corporation, 213 F.3d 885 (5th Cir. 2000)( per curiam), a case which is substantially identical both sub judice and on its facts.The Jackson case involved a non-resident alien seaman injured while aboard a vessel engaged in offshore oil and gas exploration within the meaning of 46 U.S.C. § 688(b) off of the coast of Mexico, who brought negligence claims against the vessel owner under the Jones Act, and, alternatively, under Mexican and Honduran tort law and international maritime law ( lex maritime). On rehearing, the federal Fifth Circuit held that the fact that the Louisiana court dismissed the seaman's foreign law claims "without prejudice" did not preclude his federal court claims from being barred under the doctrine of res judicata. Here, as in the Jackson case, there is no question but that the state court dismissal was pursuant to a motion for summary judgment and that § 688(b) was the basis of dismissal of all of the plaintiffs' claims.
Section 688(b)(1) bars not only claims made pursuant to the Jones Act other maritime laws of the United States, but also foreign law claims, when made by a non-citizen or non- permanent resident alien of the United States at the time of the incident giving rise to the action, if the incident occurred while that person was in the employ of an enterprise engaged in the exploration, development or production of off-shore mineral or energy resources in territorial waters or waters overlaying the continental shelf of a nation other than the United States, its territories, or possession. 28 U.S.C. § 688(b). However, in the case where the injured non-U.S. resident/non-permanent resident alien can establish that no remedy "was available" under the laws of the nation asserting jurisdiction over the area in which the incident occurred or under the laws of the nation in which the injured person is a citizen, then the provisions of § 688(b)(1) are not applicable. Id. (emphasis added).
See Jackson v. North Bank Towing Corporation, 213 F.3d 885. 888 (5th Cir. 2000)( per curiam).
The Jackson court observed:
Louisiana's doctrine of res judicata was substantially changed in 1990 by new LA. R.S. 13:4231, which "provides a broad application of res judicata; the purpose is to foster judicial efficiency and protect the defendants from multiple lawsuits." Fine v. Regional Transit Auth., 676 So.2d 1134, 1136 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1996). "The statute was amended in 1990 to make a substantive change in the law: a judgment bar to all causes of actions arising out the same occurrence." Id. The statute's broad principle of preclusion is subject to exceptions, however, and LA R.S. 13:4232 provides:
A judgment does not bar another action by the plaintiff:
(1) When exceptional circumstances justify relief from the res judicata effect of the judgment;
(2) When the judgment dismissed the first action without prejudice; or
(3) When the judgment reserved the right of the plaintiff to bring another action.
Id. at 888.
The Jackson court further noted that whereas Louisiana jurisprudence construes res judicata effect broadly, in contrast Louisiana courts interpret § 4232's exceptions strictly and/or narrowly. The court observed:
For example, in Centanni v. Ford Motor Co., 636 So.2d 1153, 1155 (La.App. 3d Cir.), cert. denied, 644 So.2d 656 (La. 1994), the court noted that the exception for dismissals without prejudice "is designed to protect those drawn into error by an awkward factual or legal scenario, not by those who can allude to no circumstance to justify no action at all." And under facts slightly different from those presented here, another Louisiana court of appeal held that a settlement and a dismissal was res judicata, even though the dismissal was without prejudice. See Medicus v. Scott, 744 So.24 192, 196 (La.App. 2nd Cir. 1999). The court reasoned that "[p]ublic policy favors compromises and the finality of settlements." Id. Likewise, the broad application of res judicata serves the purpose of "foster[ing] judicial efficiency and protect[ing] the defendants from multiple lawsuits." Fine, 676 So.2d at 1136.
Jackson, 213 F.3d at 889.
Here, as in the Jackson case, application of the doctrine works no undue hardship upon the instant plaintiffs. Both plaintiffs and the defendant had their day in court on the very issues raised in the captioned proceedings. Moreover, it is undisputed that plaintiffs are presently prosecuting an action arising out of the subject accident in the High Court of Trinidad-Tobago and have also recovered workers' compensation. Additionally, the Louisiana Fourth Circuit considered and rejected the plaintiffs' claims that they lost their right to proceed in foreign courts, noting that plaintiffs cannot sleep on their rights, allow their foreign law claims to prescribe, and later seek to avail themselves of § 4232(l)'s exceptional circumstances remedy, when the circumstance was the result of their own inaction.
Considering that the Louisiana Fourth Circuit previously considered the issue of exceptional circumstances and rejected plaintiffs' argument in that regard, relitigating that issue again in this Court would permit an end-run around the doctrine of res judicata, which Louisiana courts broadly construe. Principles of comity counsel in favor of respecting final decisions of Louisiana courts, and in this case the Court is presented with all of the facts necessary to make the determination that res judicata serves to bar the plaintiffs' claims in the captioned proceeding.
Accordingly, and for all of the above and foregoing reasons, including that the plaintiffs have failed demonstrate equitable factors warranting dispensation from the res judicata effect of the state court's final decision dismissing identical claims,
IT IS ORDERED that pursuant to the defendant T.T. Boat Corporation's Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss, summary judgment is hereby GRANTED dismissing the plaintiffs' claims in their entirety as barred by the doctrine of res judicata.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 15th day of April,
KURT D. ENGELHARDT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE