Servicio Marina Superior, L.L.C. v. OPI International Contractors, Ltd.
2:12-cv-02847
E.D. La.Apr 22, 2013Background
- OPI International Contractors, Ltd. allegedly breached a charter agreement for the tug ATLAS, invoicing Servicio for unpaid charter charges.
- OPI Contractors was signed by Parker, who was then Chief Operating Officer of OPI Contractors.
- OPI and its parent were sold to a Nigerian entity on October 24, 2012, after which Parker purportedly ceased involvement with OPI Contractors.
- Servicio attempted service on OPI Contractors in Houston, Texas, around February 6-12, 2013, and Parker indicated he could receive papers though he claimed no authority for OPI Contractors.
- The summons directed to OPI Contractors was issued to OPI International Contractors, Ltd. via Parker at a Houston address; Parker later stated he was not an officer or agent for OPI Contractors.
- OPI moved to quash service, arguing Parker lacked authority and had no ongoing relationship with OPI Contractors; Servicio did not file a response addressing service validity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether service on Parker for OPI Contractors was valid | Plaintiff contends Parker accepted service as an authorized agent. | OPI contends Parker was not an officer or agent for OPI Contractors after sale. | Service quashed; Parker had no legal relationship with OPI Contractors at service. |
| Whether service complied with Rule 4 for serving a corporation | Servicio asserts proper service via Parker as agent. | OPI argues service through a former employee is improper. | Quash; service on Parker cannot satisfy Rule 4 for a corporation. |
| Whether Louisiana law permits service via a corporate officer when designation is unclear | Parker could be a proper officer if OPI Contractors hadn’t designated an agent. | Parker not designated as an officer or agent after sale; unclear status. | Court did not resolve due to lack of adequate factual showing; favors quash. |
| Whether dismissal under Rule 12(b)(5) is warranted | Not explicitly addressed due to service quash. | Seek dismissal if service fails and cannot be cured. | Not decided; court grants quash and allows re-service opportunity. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gartin v. Par Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc., 289 F. App’x 688 (5th Cir. 2008) (wrong party served supports quashing service)
- Thomas v. New Leaders for New Schools, 278 F.R.D. 347 (E.D. La. 2011) (quash and permit re-service when appropriate)