Intrepid Ship Management, Inc. v. PRC Environmental, Inc.
711 F. App'x 208
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Crowley-operated vessel allided with the rig VIKING PROSPECTOR (the Rig); PRC Environmental (PRC) worked on the Rig and sued for damages.
- PRC claimed a proprietary interest in the Rig based on a purported joint venture with title owner Francisco Moreno; Moreno was not a party to the suit.
- The district court found title never passed from Moreno to the joint venture and dismissed PRC for lack of standing; PRC’s motion to amend to clarify it sued on behalf of the joint venture was denied.
- PRC also argued in the alternative that it was a de facto bareboat charterer (control short of ownership), which could confer standing. The district court rejected that theory.
- PRC appealed the standing dismissal; the Fifth Circuit reviewed the record and affirmed, concluding PRC failed to prove both the existence of a joint venture and any transfer (or intent to transfer) of the Rig into such a venture.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does PRC have standing via a joint venture interest in the Rig? | PRC: A joint venture with Moreno existed and Moreno transferred the Rig to the venture, giving PRC a proprietary interest. | Crowley: No valid joint venture was proved and title never passed; PRC lacks proprietary interest. | Held: No. PRC failed to prove an agreement to share profits/losses and failed to show transfer or intent to transfer the Rig. |
| Could PRC be a de facto bareboat charterer satisfying proprietary-interest requirement? | PRC: Its control over the Rig was sufficient—"just shy of outright ownership." | Crowley: Moreno retained controlling rights; PRC lacked the necessary level of control. | Held: No. Moreno retained key control (e.g., consent to move the Rig), so bareboat-charter theory fails. |
| Was the district court’s dismissal for lack of standing improper under Rule 12(b)(1) or summary-judgment standards? | PRC: Challenged findings, but argued under summary-judgment standard. | Crowley: Jurisdictional dismissal appropriate; district court may resolve facts as needed. | Held: Affirmed; PRC’s challenges fail even under summary-judgment scrutiny. |
| Was denial of PRC’s motion to amend reversible? | PRC: Sought leave to amend to clarify it appeared for the joint venture. | Crowley: Procedural rulings appropriate; PRC waived challenge by not objecting to magistrate’s order. | Held: PRC waived appellate review of the denial for failure to object; court did not consider it. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lane v. Halliburton, 529 F.3d 548 (5th Cir. 2008) (district court may resolve facts to decide jurisdictional challenges)
- Int’l Marine, L.L.C. v. Integrity Fisheries, Inc., 860 F.3d 754 (5th Cir. 2017) (summary-judgment standard and review explained)
- Int’l Marine, L.L.C. v. Delta Towing, L.L.C., 704 F.3d 350 (5th Cir. 2013) (summary-judgment standard citation)
- In re Deepwater Horizon, 784 F.3d 1019 (5th Cir. 2015) (proprietary-interest requirement and bareboat-charter discussion)
- Pitts & Collard, L.L.P. v. Schechter, 369 S.W.3d 301 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2011) (elements required for a valid Texas joint venture include agreement to share profits and losses)
- Siller v. LPP Mortg., Ltd., 264 S.W.3d 324 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2008) (ownership of property used in partnership depends on intent; mere use does not make it partnership property)
- Littleton v. Littleton, 341 S.W.2d 484 (Tex. Civ. App.—Houston 1960) (same principle regarding intent and property ownership in partnership contexts)