Summary
explaining that "[b]ecause Fifth Circuit case law clearly holds that a seaman may not recover punitive damages on a claim for maintenance and cure, plaintiff can prove no set of facts that would entitled him to relief"
Summary of this case from Mancuso v. D.R.D. Towing CompanyOpinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 03-1812, c/w 03-1291, SECTION "K" (4).
July 11, 2003.
ORDER AND REASONS
Before this Court is a Motion to Dismiss the Punitive Damages Claim, Rec. Doc. 12, brought by defendants Aquatica, Inc. ("Aquatica") and Cal Dive International, Inc. ("Cal Dive"). For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS the motion.
I. BACKGROUND
The Motion to Dismiss arises from Halstead's complaint for maintenance and cure benefits arising out of a decompression sickness incident occurring on March 12, 2002, and Halstead's claim for punitive damages for failure to pay maintenance and cure. Defendants Aquatica and Cal Dive contend that the claim for punitive damages for defendants' alleged failure to pay maintenance and cure should be dismissed because such a claim is not cognizable in the Fifth Circuit pursuant to Guevara v. Maritime Overseas Corp., 59 F.3d 1496 (5th Cir. 1996). Since Guevara precludes, recovery of punitive damages on plaintiff's maintenance and cure claim, Aquatica and Cal Dive argue the claims should be dismissed.
Plaintiff in his opposition concedes that Guevara is controlling law in this circuit, however, he maintains that Guevara was incorrectly decided and wishes to pursue the issue before the Supreme Court.
II. LEGAL STANDARD ANALYSIS
To determine whether a motion to dismiss has merit, Jefferson v. Lead Ind. Ass'n. Inc., 106 F.3d 1245, 1250 (5th Cir. 1997) instructs that "[t]he standard to be applied to a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule 12(b)(6) is a familiar one." The district court must take the factual allegations of the complaint as true and resolve any ambiguities or doubts regarding the sufficiency of the claim in favor of the plaintiff. Fernandez-Montes v. Allied Pilots Ass'n., 987 F.2d 278, 284 (5th Cir. 1993). The complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff cannot prove any set of facts in support of her claim that would entitle her to relief. Fernandez-Montes, 987 F.2d at 284, 285; Leffall v. Dallas Independent School District, 28 F.3d 521, 524 (5th Cir. 1994). However, conclusory allegations or legal conclusions masquerading as factual conclusions will not suffice to prevent a motion to dismiss. Fernandez-Montes, 987 F.2d at 284; Tuchman v. DSC Communications Corp., 14 F.3d 1061, 1067 (5th Cir. 1994).
Because Fifth Circuit case law clearly holds that a seaman may not recover punitive damages on a claim for maintenance and cure, plaintiff can prove no set of facts that would entitle him to relief. Guevara, 59 F.3d at 1512.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss the Punitive Damages Claim brought by defendants Aquatica, Inc. ("Aquatica") and Cal Dive International, Inc. ("Cal Dive"), Rec. Doc. 12, is hereby GRANTED.