The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
ROBBIN E BLYTHE CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS CASE NO. 17-5184
OFFSHORE SERVICE VESSELS, L.L.C., et al. SECTION: “G”(4)
ORDER
Before the Court is Defendants Caterpillar Inc. (“Caterpillar”), and Louisiana Machinery
Company, LLC’s (“Louisiana Machinery”) (collectively, “Defendants”) “Joint Motion to
Continue Trial and Pre-Trial Deadlines.”1 Plaintiff Robbin Blythe (“Plaintiff”) opposes the
motion.2 Defendants claims that counsel for defendant, Offshore Service Vessels, LLC (“OSV”),
has indicated OSV has no objection to the requested continuance.3 Considering the motion, the
memoranda in support and in opposition, the record, the arguments of counsel, and the applicable
law, the Court denies the motion.
I. Background
A. Factual Background
Plaintiff, a citizen and resident of Panama, alleges that on January 21, 2015, he suffered
injuries, specifically post-traumatic stress disorder, as the result of being trapped aboard the vessel
AHTS EDISON CHOEST while a fire occurred in the engine room.4 Plaintiff alleges that at the
1 Rec. Doc. 84.
2 Rec. Doc. 87.
3 Rec. Doc. 84.
4 Rec. Doc. 1 at 1–2
1
time, he was employed as a “seaman” for OSV, a Louisiana company that owned and operated the
vessel.5 Plaintiff alleges that when the fire occurred, the vessel was located off the coast of
Trinidad and Tobago.6 Plaintiff alleges that Caterpillar manufactured the engine of the AHTS
EDISON CHOEST, and provided training to technicians of their brand companies, Louisiana
Machinery and Massy Machinery Ltd.’s (“Massy”), in the servicing, repairing, and inspecting of
its machinery and equipment.7 Plaintiff further alleges that the inspections and/or engine work that
Louisiana Machinery performed in November 2012 and August 2014; and that Massy performed
in August 2014, December 2014, and January 2015, caused or contributed to his alleged injuries.8
B. Procedural Background
Plaintiff filed a complaint in this Court on May 24, 2017, bringing claims solely against
OSV under the Jones Act and general maritime law.9 Plaintiff then filed a supplemental and
amended complaint on April 16, 2018, with leave of Court, adding claims against Caterpillar,
Louisiana Machinery, and Massy under general maritime law and under the laws of Trinidad and
Tobago.10
On June 12, 2018, Defendant Caterpillar filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s general
maritime law claims against Caterpillar.11 On July 13, 2018, Defendant Louisiana Machinery filed
5 Id.
6 Id.
7 Rec. Doc. 16 at 3.
8 Id. at 4–5.
9 Rec. Doc. 1.
10 Rec. Doc. 16.
11 Rec. Doc. 25.
2
a similar motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s general maritime law claims against Louisiana Machinery.
On August 29, 2018, the Court granted both motions to dismiss, dismissing Plaintiff’s general
maritime law claims against Caterpillar and Louisiana Machinery, but reserving all remaining
claims arising under the laws of Trinidad and Tobago.13
On March 19, 2019, Louisiana Machinery filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing
that Plaintiff cannot prove that the laws of Trinidad and Tobago apply, thus the remaining claims
based on these laws should be dismissed.14 On April 29, 2019, the Court denied the motion,
finding a dispute of material fact regarding the defendant’s base of operations.15
On April 1, 2019, Massy filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that it does not have sufficient
minimum contacts with Louisiana to establish personal jurisdiction.16 On September 30, 2019, the
Court granted the motion, concluding that Plaintiff had not presented sufficient facts to make out
a prima facie case that Massy has the requisite minimum contacts for the Court to exercise personal
jurisdiction over Massy.17
On April 4, 2019, Caterpillar filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that Plaintiff
has no viable claim under the laws of Trinidad and Tobago.18 On July 30, 2019, Louisiana
12 Rec. Doc. 30.
13 Rec. Doc. 34.
14 Rec. Doc. 43.
15 Rec. Doc. 69.
16 Rec. Doc. 44.
17 Rec. Doc. 83.
18 Rec. Doc. 52.
3
Machinery filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that its base of operations is Louisiana.
On October 8, 2019, Louisiana Machinery filed a motion for summary judgment on the issue of
liability.20 These motions are currently pending before the Court.
On October 8, 2019, Defendants filed the instant “Joint Motion to Continue Trial and Pre-
Trial Deadlines.”21 On October 15, 2019, Plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion.22
II. Parties’ Arguments
A. Defendants’ Arguments in Support of the Motion to Continue
In the instant motion, Defendants request a continuance of the January 13, 2020 trial date
for three reasons.23 First, Defendants argue that a continuance should be granted because both
Caterpillar and Louisiana Machinery have pending motions for summary judgment, which, if
granted, would result in their dismissal from this suit.24 Second, Defendants argue that this Court
has not yet ruled on which body of law applies to Mr. Blythe’s claims and that it would be
prejudicial to force Defendants to prepare expert reports and engage in other trial preparation
efforts with such major issues outstanding.25 Third, Defendants argue Plaintiff has not provided
dates for Plaintiff’s deposition, despite requests from Defendants.26 Accordingly, Defendants
19 Rec. Doc. 78.
20 Rec. Doc. 85.
21 Rec. Doc. 84.
22 Rec. Doc. 87.
23 Rec. Doc. 84-2.
24 Id. at 3.
25 Id. at 4.
26 Id.
4
request that the trial and pretrial deadlines be continued.
B. Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendants’ Motion
In opposition, Plaintiff first argues that the request for a continuance should be denied
because this action has been pending for more than two years, and Defendants were added more
than a year ago.28 Second, Plaintiff asserts that Plaintiff “has informed his counsel that he is
available to be deposed in early November before the deposition cut-off date.”29 Third, Plaintiff
contends that Plaintiff “will be unfairly prejudiced by a continuance of pre-trial and trial dates.”30
Fourth, Plaintiff asserts that the Court still has sufficient time to rule on Defendants’ motions for
summary judgment.31 As a result, Plaintiff argues that “Defendants have failed to demonstrate
good cause for continuing the pre-trial and trial dates in this matter” and that the Court should
therefore deny the Motion to Continue.32
III. Legal Standard
A federal district court has the inherent power to enforce its scheduling order.33 Under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b), a scheduling order “may be modified only for good cause
and with the judge’s consent.”34 Whether to grant a continuance is within the sound discretion of
27 Id. at 5.
28 Rec. Doc. 87 at 4.
29 Id.
30 Id. at 5.
31 Id.
32 Id.
33 See Flaska v. Little River Marine Const. Co., 389 F.2d 885, 886 & n.3 (5th Cir. 1968) (citing Link v.
Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630 (1962)).
34 Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4).
5
the trial court. Indeed, the Court’s “judgment range is exceedingly wide” because the court “must
consider not only the facts of the particular case but also all of the demands on counsel’s time and
the court’s.”36 “The good cause standard requires the ‘party seeking relief to show that the
deadlines cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party needing the extension.’”37
IV. Analysis
In this motion, Defendants provide three reasons to continue the trial date: motions for
summary judgment remain pending before the Court, the open question regarding the body of law
applicable to Plaintiff’s claims, and Plaintiff’s failure to provide dates to conduct a deposition.38
The Court has ruled on Defendant’s motions for summary judgment.39 Furthermore, the Court has
ruled that there are material facts in dispute that prevent the Court from deciding at the summary
judgment phase which body of law is applicable to Plaintiff’s claims. Therefore, this issue will be
decided at trial. Lastly, Plaintiff asserts in his opposition brief that he is available to be deposed in
early November before the deposition cut-off date.40 Plaintiff also contends that he “will be
unfairly prejudiced by a continuance of pre-trial and trial dates.”41 Therefore, Defendants have not
established good cause for a continuance of the January 13, 2020 trial date in this matter.
35 United States v. Alix, 86 F.3d 429, 434 (5th Cir.1996).
36 Streber v. Hunter, 221 F.3d 701, 736 (5th Cir. 2000) (internal citations omitted).
37 S&W Enter., LLC v. SouthTrust Bank of Alabama, NA, 315 F.3d 533, 535 (5th Cir. 2003) (internal
citation omitted).
38 Rec. Doc. 84.
39 See Rec. Docs. 93, 94.
40 See Rec. Doc. 87 at 4.
41 Id. at 5.
6
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants Caterpillar Inc. and Louisiana Machinery
Company, LLC’s “Joint Motion to Continue Trial and Pre-Trial Deadlines’? is DENIED.
NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA, this 24thday of October, 2019.
NANNETTE J QO ETTE BROWN
CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
® Rec. Doc. 84.