Opinion
Civil Action No. 96-513
July 13, 2000
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is defendant Western Geophysical's motion for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Adriatic, Inc., et al.'s motion for leave to file a fourth amended complaint. For the following reasons, the Western's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED in part and DENTED in part and Adriatic's motion for leave to file a fourth amended complaint is DENIED.
I. BACKGROUND
On July 1, 1990, Western Geophysical Co. ("Western") and Texaco, Inc. ("Texaco") entered into a contract for geological services whereby Western agreed to conduct seismic surveys for Texaco in search of subsurface geological structures containing accumulations of oil and gas. The seismic surveys consisted of transporting and discharging explosives and other energy sources including air guns in part on state-owned water bottoms leased to Adriatic, et al. for raising oysters in the South Marsh Island area of Louisiana. Lessees allege that the contract between Western and Texaco, as well as the requirements of the state permits and regulations, required Western to obtain entry permits or permission from the lease holders and/or at least notify the lease holders of the nature and extent of the seismic activities.
Plaintiffs argue that they have suffered four types of damages from Western. First, plaintiffs contend that Western failed to abide by the laws pertaining to seismic operations. Second, plaintiffs suggest that Western illegally trespassed on their leases without authorization or consideration. Third, plaintiffs insist that Western failed to disclose in advance all their activities and pay appropriate consideration. Finally, plaintiffs maintain that Western failed to exercise proper care and safety in storing, handling, and transporting hazardous or toxic substances. In short, they assert that Western breached its duty established by its contract with Texaco as well as the requirements of its permits and state regulations. This breach of duty, explain plaintiffs, resulted in an unlawful entry or trespass on or over their lease holds for which they are entitled to remuneration or compensatory damages.
II. ANALYSIS
A. Western's Motion for Summary Judgment
Summary judgment is appropriate if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). In this analysis, the Court must view the facts and inferences from the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. See Crescent Towing Salvage Co. v. M/V ANAX, 40 F.3d 741, 743 (5th Cir. 1994). Once the moving party demonstrates that there is no issue of material fact, the burden shifts to the nonmoving party to prove that there is an issue of material fact. See Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986). The nonmoving party may not depend solely on denials contained in the pleadings, but must submit specific facts. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e). If the factual context makes the nonmoving party's claims implausible, that party must come forward with more persuasive evidence than would otherwise be necessary to show an issue of material fact. See Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 587.
Western moves for summary judgment arguing that no genuine material issue of fact exists concerning plaintiffs' right to sue for trespass and punitive damages. Western contends that plaintiffs have no right of action to sue for failure to obtain consent for using air shots. Moreover, Western asserts that plaintiffs can prove no valid trespass claim because they have no evidence of actual damages. Western also argues that plaintiffs have signed settlement checks releasing it from liability and that there is no evidence of punitive damages. Adriatic responds that a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether plaintiffs consented to air shots being used and as to what damages resulted from their use.
Louisiana law provides oyster lessees a clear cause of action for damages done to the beds or grounds under their oyster leases. See La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 56:423(B)(1) (stating "a lessee of oyster beds or grounds . . . shall have the right to maintain an action for damages against any . . . entity causing wrongful or negligent injury or damage to the beds or grounds under lease to such lessee"); Butler v. Baber, 529 So.2d 374, 480 (La. 1988). Plaintiff lessees explain that they suffered damages from Western's use of air guns because a study of the area where air shots were used indicates an 8.3% oyster morality rate. See Pls.' Opp'n Ex. I. Moreover, plaintiffs suggest that more disruptive activity occurs during the use of air shots than through the use of dynamite because more vessels are required for firing air shots. See id. at Ex. F. Therefore, plaintiffs raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether plaintiffs suffered damages to their oyster beds because of Western's seismic activity.
No genuine issue of material fact exists, however, concerning Western's liability for using air shots where plaintiffs incurred no actual damages. To recover for their claims of trespass, plaintiffs must show that they in fact incurred damages. See Collette v. Marine Exploration Co., 213 F. Supp. 690, 611 (E.D. La. 1963) (finding no claim for damage to oysters or oysterbeds simply by seismic dynamite charges); Harrington v. Abshire, 732 So.2d 677, 682 (La.Ct.App. 3rd Cir. 1999) (holding that in an action for trespass damages must be proved by a preponderance of evidence). Plaintiffs have no claim in an action for trespass where they cannot demonstrate "damages based on the result or the consequences of an injury flowing from the act of the trespass." Harrington, 732 So.2d at 682. As a matter of law, therefore, plaintiffs may only recover for those trespass claims in which they suffered actual damages.
Plaintiffs additionally argue that Western is liable for trespass because it did not obtain the consent of lessees for the use of air shots over their lessees as suggested by the Wildlife and Fisheries section of the Louisiana Administrative Code. See La. Admin. Code tit. 76, § 301(P) (1997) (stating no explosives shall "be discharged within 250 feet of any oyster reef or bed . . . without permission of the owner and/or lessee of the reef or bed"). While it is unclear whether plaintiffs have any cause of action under this regulatory provision, they nevertheless offer no evidence of damages to support these claims. Plaintiffs show no loss or damage incurred because of Western's failure to obtain their consent for using air shots. Moreover, Western secured permission from the state and owner of the oyster beds for its seismic activity.
In addition to their claims for damages related to trespass, plaintiffs argue that they are entitled to punitive damages for Western's handling of dangerous materials. Plaintiffs present neither argument nor evidence to support their claim for punitive damages. Accordingly, summary judgment is appropriate for plaintiffs' punitive damages claims.
B. Adriatic's Motion to File Fourth Amended Complaint
Plaintiffs seek leave to file a fourth amended complaint to register additional claims under the doctrines of quantum merit and/or unjust enrichment. Western objects to the filing of a fourth amended complaint because the motion is untimely and prejudices Western.
The Court has extensive discretion to decide whether to grant leave to amend pleadings. See Wright, Miller Kane, Federal Practice Procedure § 1487 (2d ed. 1987). When plaintiffs seek to amend their theory of liability, the Court may deny the amendment if the defendant will be prejudiced. See Hall v. Aetna Casualty Surety Co., 617 F.2d 1108, 1110-1111 (5th Cir. 1980). The defendant would be prejudiced by an amended complaint in the present case because plaintiffs propose two new theories of liability in their fourth amended complaint. To prepare for the trial scheduled four months hence, new depositions would need to be taken and other discovery prepared. Plaintiffs have pursued this litigation for more than four years and have amended their complaint on three prior occasions. If plaintiffs were to file another amended complaint this late in the proceedings, defendants would be unduly prejudiced.
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Western's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED on plaintiffs' claims of punitive damages and DENTED on with respect to plaintiffs' claims of trespass alleging actual damages. Moreover, Adriatic's motion for leave to file a fourth amended complaint is DENIED.