In re Louisiana Crawfish Producers
772 F.3d 1026
5th Cir.2014Background
- Louisiana Crawfish Producers Ass'n-West and member commercial fishermen sued multiple oil/gas companies and insurers claiming pipeline activities in the Atchafalaya Basin impeded water flows and navigation, causing economic harm.
- Plaintiffs asserted claims under state law and general maritime law; state-law claims were dismissed and one defendant removed the case to federal court.
- The district court allowed maritime tort claims to proceed against defendants alleged to have dredged, but dismissed maritime claims against defendants (DIGC and Willbros) alleged only to have performed pipeline construction/repair and not to have used vessels.
- Plaintiffs also alleged successor liability: that DIGC is successor to Dow and operated under a permit originally issued to Dow; they alleged no further facts showing an assumption of liabilities.
- On appeal, most dismissed defendants settled; only DIGC and Willbros remained before the court, which affirmed dismissal as to both defendants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiffs pleaded a maritime tort (Grubart location and connection tests) | The activities (placing cement mats, leveling spoil banks, obstructing gaps) obstructed navigable waters and thus are maritime torts tied to navigation | Activities were pipeline construction/repair (non-maritime in character) and did not involve vessels | Dismissed: location test met but connection test second prong failed — activity described as pipeline construction/repair, not substantially related to traditional maritime activity |
| Proper level of generality for the connection test | Characterize the activity as negligent/intentional construction causing spoil obstruction (plaintiff’s narrower framing) | Characterize the activity more generally as pipeline construction and repair | Court adopts defendants’ broader characterization: courts must define the activity by general conduct, not the specific cause of harm |
| Successor liability for DIGC as successor to Dow | DIGC is successor to Dow and operated under Dow’s Army Corps permit, implying successor liability | Corporate-successor rule generally bars successor liability absent an exception (assumption, continuation, fraud/escapism), and plaintiffs alleged none | Dismissed: plaintiffs failed to plead facts showing any Golden State Bottling exception plausibly applies |
| Standard for Rule 12(b)(6) review | Not disputed (Twombly/Iqbal standard applies) | Same | Applied Twombly standard; plaintiffs’ allegations were insufficiently factual to state a plausible claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Jerome B. Grubart, Inc. v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co., 513 U.S. 527 (1995) (announces two-part test—location and connection—for admiralty jurisdiction/maritime torts)
- Sisson v. Ruby, 497 U.S. 358 (1990) (instructs on framing the ‘‘general character’’ of activity for the Grubart connection test)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading standard: must state a plausible claim to relief)
- Golden State Bottling Co. v. NLRB, 414 U.S. 168 (1973) (default rule on corporate successor liability and exceptions)
- Exec. Jet Aviation, Inc. v. City of Cleveland, 409 U.S. 249 (1972) (example of defining ‘‘general character’’ of activity at the proper level of generality)
- Herb’s Welding, Inc. v. Gray, 470 U.S. 414 (1985) (indicates pipeline/platform construction and repair typically not closely related to traditional admiralty activity)