In Re Louisiana Crawfish Producers
852 F.3d 456
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Louisiana Crawfish Producers Association-West and individual crawfishermen sued energy companies alleging canal-dredging activities (spoil banks) damaged Atchafalaya Basin fisheries; remaining defendants on appeal were Florida Gas Transmission Co. (Florida Gas) and Southern Natural Gas Co. (Southern Natural).
- District court denied defendants’ prior motion to dismiss as to Florida Gas and Southern Natural (finding maritime tort claims adequately pleaded under Grubart) but later granted summary judgment for Florida Gas and Southern Natural on defendants’ joint motion; plaintiffs opposed and reserved right to supplement after Southern Natural’s deposition.
- Southern Natural’s Rule 30(b)(6) deposition occurred after briefing deadlines; plaintiffs received an uncertified transcript before the district court’s summary judgment order but received the certified transcript and Southern Natural’s requests-for-admission responses shortly after the ruling.
- Southern Natural’s deposition and admissions expressly acknowledged that Southern Natural dredged the canal at issue; plaintiffs moved for reconsideration (Rule 59(e)) attaching the deposition transcript, deposition exhibits, and Southern Natural’s admissions.
- District court denied reconsideration as to both defendants; Fifth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Florida Gas (finding plaintiffs’ evidence insufficient to raise fact issue that Florida Gas dredged) but reversed as to Southern Natural, holding the court abused its discretion by not considering plaintiffs’ newly presented, probative admissions and deposition testimony and vacated Southern Natural’s summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Florida Gas engaged in dredging sufficient to create a triable maritime tort issue | Plaintiffs relied on Florida Gas’s Corps permit/application, a photograph, Southern Natural’s deposition, and an internal memo to show dredging or connection to dredging | Florida Gas argued it only placed pipeline into an existing canal (pipeline placement/repair), not dredging; movant may point to absence of evidence | Held: Affirmed for Florida Gas — plaintiffs’ materials did not create a genuine fact issue that Florida Gas dredged |
| Whether Southern Natural engaged in dredging and summary judgment properly entered | Plaintiffs proffered Southern Natural’s deposition transcript and requests for admission in which Southern Natural admitted it dredged the canal | Southern Natural argued plaintiffs failed to timely present that evidence before summary judgment and that documentary exhibits were previously available | Held: Reversed denial of Rule 59(e) and vacated summary judgment for Southern Natural — deposition/admissions were new, probative, and would have defeated summary judgment; district court abused discretion by not considering them |
| Standard of review for denial of Rule 59(e) when new materials submitted | Plaintiffs argued district court should have considered new materials under de novo review for those it did consider and abuse-of-discretion where it did not | Defendants argued plaintiffs untimely raised evidence; district court treated materials as untimely | Held: Applied de novo review to Florida Gas (court had considered new evidence) and abuse-of-discretion to Southern Natural (court likely did not consider new materials) |
| Effect of case-management order permitting supplementation within 30 days of receipt of Southern Natural transcript | Plaintiffs argued they complied — they filed Rule 59(e) within 30 days of certified transcript and were justified in waiting to supplement once the official transcript and admissions were available | Defendants and district court faulted plaintiffs for not immediately supplementing and for failing to seek an extension | Held: Fifth Circuit found plaintiffs acted within the case-management order and were not required to seek extension; this supported permitting consideration of the new evidence as excusable and probative |
Key Cases Cited
- Templet v. Hydrochem Inc., 367 F.3d 473 (5th Cir. 2004) (standards for considering new evidence on reconsideration and appropriate appellate review)
- Lindsey v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 16 F.3d 616 (5th Cir. 1994) (movant may point to absence of evidence to shift burden on summary judgment)
- Grubart v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co., 513 U.S. 527 (1995) (requirements for maritime jurisdiction where dredging relates to maritime activity)
- Luig v. N. Bay Enters., Inc., 817 F.3d 901 (5th Cir. 2016) (considerations on whether district court abused discretion in denying reconsideration where new evidence was likely not considered)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (1986) (summary judgment inferences and nonmovant burden)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (standard for sufficient evidence to warrant trial)
- Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069 (5th Cir. 1994) (movant’s ability to assert absence of facts supporting plaintiff’s theory on summary judgment)
- Sisson v. Ruby, 497 U.S. 358 (1990) (scope of traditional maritime activities relevant to jurisdiction)