Joshua McCoy v. Energy XXI GOM, L.L.C.
695 F. App'x 750
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Joshua McCoy, a mechanic’s helper employed by a nonparty contractor, was injured on May 27, 2015 while draining a crane tank on offshore platform SMI 239D owned by Energy XXI; Wood Group was the platform operator.
- The tank lacked a ball valve and extended plumbing present on other platforms; McCoy contends he had to move a grating, work beneath the tank, and use heavy tools to remove a tight hexagonal plug, after which the grating fell and injured him.
- McCoy also alleges he was required to transfer to a crewboat via a rope swing rather than a safer basket, exacerbating his injuries.
- McCoy sued Energy and Wood Group in Texas state court asserting negligence and premises-liability claims; defendants removed under OCSLA (applying Louisiana law). McCoy later added Flow, a Louisiana company, which the district court dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction.
- The district court limited discovery, granted defendants’ summary judgment finding McCoy entirely at fault, denied further discovery and motions to transfer venue; McCoy appealed.
- The Fifth Circuit affirmed dismissal of Flow for lack of jurisdiction but reversed and remanded the summary judgment and discovery rulings as erroneous for improperly resolving factual disputes and curtailing discovery.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether summary judgment was proper on negligence and premises-liability claims | McCoy: genuine disputes exist about the tank’s dangerous condition, comparative design on other platforms, and causation; discovery was curtailed so factual issues remain | Energy/Wood: McCoy’s own carelessness caused the injury; physical facts show no liability | Reversed — summary judgment improperly resolved credibility and factual disputes; remanded for further proceedings |
| Whether denial of additional discovery warranted reversal | McCoy: limited discovery prevented development of essential facts (other tanks, platform conditions, relationships among parties) | Defendants: discovery limited as proportional and relevant; costs and burden justified limits | Reversed as to discovery — court abused discretion by preventing discovery essential to oppose summary judgment (but moot on some points due to reversal) |
| Whether Flow should be dismissed or case transferred for venue/jurisdiction | McCoy: transfer to Western District of Louisiana would cure venue/jurisdiction defects and serve justice | Flow/defendants: dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction in Texas is appropriate | Affirmed — dismissal without prejudice for lack of personal jurisdiction is not an abuse of discretion (transfer not required) |
| Whether Louisiana substantive law (duty-risk, comparative fault) precludes summary judgment here | McCoy: duty-breach and apportionment are fact questions; comparative fault prevents complete bar to recovery | Defendants: alleged undisputed facts show McCoy’s actions were sole cause | Held: Louisiana law (duty-risk, res ipsa, and pure comparative fault) means breach and apportionment are factual issues unsuitable for summary judgment on this record; summary judgment inappropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Cox v. Wal-Mart Stores E., L.P., 755 F.3d 231 (5th Cir.) (standard for reviewing summary judgment)
- E.E.O.C. v. LHC Group, Inc., 773 F.3d 688 (5th Cir.) (courts may not weigh credibility on summary judgment)
- Broussard v. State ex rel. Office of State Bldgs., 113 So. 3d 175 (La. 2013) (unreasonable-risk analysis: breach is a fact question for the fact-finder)
- Dupre v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 20 F.3d 154 (5th Cir.) (owner/operator duty to ensure reasonably safe premises for contractor employees)
- Syrie v. Schilhab, 693 So. 2d 1173 (La.) (duty-risk framework described)
- Landry v. Bellanger, 851 So. 2d 943 (La.) (comparative fault abolishes contributory negligence bar)
- Brown v. Mississippi Valley State Univ., 311 F.3d 328 (5th Cir.) (abuse-of-discretion review for cutting off discovery)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S.) (summary judgment standard)
- Allen v. Integrated Health Servs., Inc., 743 So. 2d 804 (La. Ct. App.) (apportionment of fault may preclude summary judgment)
- Grabowski v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 149 So. 3d 899 (La. Ct. App.) (reversal of summary judgment where genuine dispute on defendant’s fault existed)