The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
ARCHIE SLATER, CIVIL ACTION
Plaintiff
VERSUS NO. 23-1708
MARINE MGMT. SERV., INC., SECTION: “E” (2)
CROWLEY MARINE SERV., INC.,
AND SHELL OFFSHORE, INC.,
Defendants
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is Defendant Marine Management Services, Inc.’s (“MMSI”)
Motion to Transfer the above-captioned matter to the Northern District of Alabama.1
Defendant Crowley Marine Services, Inc. (“CMS”) has joined the Motion to Transfer in a
separate motion.2 Plaintiff has filed oppositions to each motion.3 Defendants have filed
replies.4 For the following reasons the Motion to Transfer is GRANTED.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed a complaint in this Court on May 19, 2023, alleging personal injuries
suffered in February 2022 on board the FPSO TURRITELLA, a vessel owned or operated
by Defendants CMS and Shell Offshore, Inc. (“Shell”), while employed by Defendant
MMSI.5 Just one day prior, on May 18, 2023, MMSI filed a complaint seeking declaratory
judgment related to MMSI’s maintenance and cure obligations arising from the same
events in the Northern District of Alabama.6
Defendants MMSI and CMS now seek transfer of the above-captioned matter to
1 R. Doc. 9.
2 R. Doc. 10.
3 R. Doc.15; R. Doc. 16.
4 R. Doc. 21; R. Doc. 23.
5 R. Doc. 1.
6 Case No. 23-632, R. Doc. 1 (N.D. Ala. May 18, 2023).
the N.D. Ala. based on the “first-filed” rule, arguing this case involves “substantial
overlap” with the declaratory judgment action pending in the Northern District of
Alabama.7
LAW AND ANALYSIS
“Under the first-to-file rule, when related cases are pending before two federal
courts, the court in which the case was last filed may refuse to hear it if the issues raised
by the cases substantially overlap.”8 “In deciding if a substantial overlap exists, [the Fifth
Circuit] has looked at factors such as whether ‘the core issue ... was the same’ or if ‘much
of the proof adduced ... would likely be identical.’”9 Where “substantial overlap between
[] two suits ha[s] been demonstrated,” the second-filed court should transfer the case to
the first-filed court to decide whether it should be “dismissed, stayed or transferred and
consolidated.”10
The “core issue” in this case involves the February 2022 injuries Plaintiff allegedly
suffered on board the FPSO TURRITELLA.11 The declaratory judgment action in
Northern District of Alabama seeks judgment as to the maintenance and cure owed to
Plaintiff in light of the same injuries.12 While this case involves additional Defendants and
claims, all claims arise from the same “core issue,” namely the injury-causing incident in
February 2022. Accordingly, there is substantial overlap between the two cases, and
transfer to the first-filed court is warranted.
7 R. Doc. 9-1; R. Doc. 10-1.
8 Cadle Co. v. Whataburger of Alice, Inc., 174 F.3d 599, 603 (5th Cir. 1999).
9 Gateway Mortg. Grp., L.L.C. v. Lehman Bros. Holdings, Inc., 694 F. App'x 225, 227 (5th Cir. 2017)
(quoting Int'l Fid. Ins. v. Sweet Little Mex. Corp., 665 F.3d 671, 678 (5th Cir. 2011)).
10 Cadle, 174 D.3d at 606.
11 R. Doc. 1.
12 R. Doc. 9-1 at 5; Case No. 23-632, R. Doc. 1 (N.D. Ala. May 18, 2023).
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that the Defendants’ motions for
transfer are GRANTED.?3 This matter is hereby TRANSFERRED to the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Alabama
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 21st day of November, 2023.
SUSIE age
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
13 R. Doc. 9; R. Doc. 10. Defendants MMSI and CMS also argue for dismissal of this case based on lack of
personal jurisdiction. The Court declines to address the merits of those arguments as transfer is warranted
based on the first-filed rule. Should the Northern District of Alabama decide to dismiss the first-filed
declaratory judgment action, and further find venue for this personal injury claim is proper in the Eastern
District of Louisiana, the Court anticipates the personal injury claim will be transferred back to this Court
and personal jurisdiction will be decided at that time.