Wren Thomas v. Chevron USA, Incorporated
832 F.3d 586
| 5th Cir. | 2016Background
- Thomas, captain of the supply vessel C-Retriever, alleged Chevron and Edison knew of piracy risks in Nigerian waters, warned broadcasts of the vessel’s location over VHF, and assigned the vessel into a dangerous area where pirates later attacked and kidnapped him.
- Thomas sued in Texas state court asserting Jones Act, unseaworthiness, and maintenance-and-cure claims against both Chevron and Edison; Chevron removed the case to federal court.
- Chevron moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) arguing it was not Thomas’s employer or vessel owner; Edison moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.
- Thomas sought leave to amend his complaint to drop Jones Act claims against Chevron and instead plead general maritime negligence and common-law claims that do not depend on an employment relationship. He gave notice of the proposed amendments in responses and supplemental briefs.
- The district court converted Chevron’s motion to dismiss into a summary-judgment motion, granted Chevron summary judgment, and denied Thomas leave to amend as futile, concluding Thomas had not pleaded a basis for Chevron’s maritime liability.
- The Fifth Circuit vacated and reversed: it held Thomas had given sufficient notice of his proposed amendment and that maritime negligence claims against Chevron were plausible and therefore not futile; it remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Thomas gave adequate notice of his intent to amend to plead maritime negligence claims | Thomas argued his response and supplemental brief put the court on notice he would replace Jones Act claims with general maritime and negligence claims against Chevron | Chevron argued the proposed maritime claims were either futile or insufficiently specific | Court: Thomas provided sufficient notice under Fifth Circuit precedent; request adequate |
| Whether amendment to add maritime negligence claims would be futile | Thomas alleged facts showing Chevron knew of piracy risks, routed the vessel into danger, broadcast route info, and failed to provide security—sufficient to state a plausible duty/breach/causation/injury claim under maritime law | Chevron contended Thomas’ claims fail as a matter of law because Chevron was not his employer and therefore not liable under Jones Act/shipowner doctrines | Court: Amendment would not be futile; maritime negligence claims are plausible and may proceed |
| Proper standard of review for denial of leave to amend based on futility | Thomas argued district court should apply Rule 12(b)(6)/Iqbal-Twombly pleading standard on futility review | Chevron relied on district court’s factual/conclusion that amendment would be futile | Court: De novo review applies for futility denials; plausibility standard governs |
| Whether Chevron can be liable under general maritime law for third‑party negligence to a seaman | Thomas argued maritime duty of ordinary care can extend to third parties and Chevron owed duties regardless of employer status | Chevron argued absence of employment or ownership foreclosed liability | Court: Maritime negligence can be asserted against third parties; duty depends on foreseeability and circumstances—plausibly alleged here |
Key Cases Cited
- Fahim v. Marriott Hotel Servs., Inc., 551 F.3d 344 (5th Cir. 2008) (standard of review for denial of leave to amend generally)
- City of Clinton v. Pilgrim’s Pride Corp., 632 F.3d 148 (5th Cir. 2010) (de novo review where denial of leave to amend is based on futility; applies Iqbal/Twombly pleading standard)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility pleading standard)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (complaint must plead factual matter to state a plausible claim)
- Doe v. Dow Chem. Co., 343 F.3d 325 (5th Cir. 2003) (party must set forth with particularity grounds for amendment to obtain Rule 15 benefit)
- Herrmann Holdings Ltd. v. Lucent Techs. Inc., 302 F.3d 552 (5th Cir. 2002) (Rule 15(a) favors granting leave to amend)
- Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (1962) (permissible reasons to deny leave to amend include futility)
- Withhart v. Otto Candies, L.L.C., 431 F.3d 840 (5th Cir. 2005) (negligence actionable under general maritime law)
- Canal Barge Co. v. Torco Oil Co., 220 F.3d 370 (5th Cir. 2000) (elements for maritime negligence: duty, breach, injury, causation)
- In re Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co. LLC, 624 F.3d 201 (5th Cir. 2010) (maritime duty is ordinary care under the circumstances)
- Consol. Aluminum Corp. v. C.F. Bean Corp., 833 F.2d 65 (5th Cir. 1987) (foreseeability central to duty determination)
- Jamieson By & Through Jamieson v. Shaw, 772 F.2d 1205 (5th Cir. 1985) (futility denial often means the theory lacks legal foundation)