The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
MAC METAL SALES, INC. CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS NO. 25-422
INGRAM BARGE CO., LLC. ET AL. SECTION “R” (4)
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is defendant Marine Inspection, LLC’s (“Marine
Inspection”) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief
can be granted.1 Plaintiff, Mac Metal Sales, Inc. (“Mac Metal”) opposed the
motion and requested leave to amend if the Court granted defendant’s
motion to dismiss.2 For the following reasons, the Court grants defendant’s
motion and dismisses plaintiff’s claims without prejudice and with leave to
amend.
I. BACKGROUND
Mac Metal’s complaint alleges that in early 2024, Mac Metal arranged
for the shipment of more than 5,500 metric tons of steel coils from Busan,
South Korea to New Orleans, Louisiana.3 It avers that a pre-shipment survey
1 R. Doc. 22.
2 R. Doc. 24.
3 R. Doc. 1 at 3.
showed that the cargo was in generally good condition when loaded onto the
M/V Lowlands Fidelity in South Korea.4
The M/V Lowlands Fidelity allegedly docked in New Orleans on
February 29, 2024.5 The complaint alleges that Mac Metal’s agent, Mid-Ship
Logistics L.L.C., facilitated and coordinated moving the coils from the M/V
Lowlands Fidelity to Ingram Barge Co. barges.6 According to the complaint,
Marine Inspection surveyors arrived to witness the movement of the coils
from the M/V Lowlands Fidelity to the Ingram barges, but the vessel agents
denied the inspectors access.7 A tugboat allegedly moved the Ingram barges
to Harahan, Louisiana.8
The complaint alleges that Marine Inspection inspectors accessed the
Ingram barges in Harahan on March 4, 2024 and observed water on one of
the four barges, T-13995, which Marine Inspection then reported.9 Upon the
Ingram barges’ arrival in Indiana a month later, allegedly one-quarter of the
coils on the T-13995 had a visible waterline, one-quarter had visible mold,
and the remaining half had an indeterminate waterline.10 Mac Metal alleges
4 R. Doc. 1 at 3.
5 Id.
6 Id. at 3-4.
7 Id. at 4.
8 Id.
9 Id. at 5.
10 Id.
that a damages survey conducted for Travelers’, Mac Metal’s insurer,
concluded that water damaged the coils aboard T-13995 during or after the
New Orleans discharge.11
Plaintiff Mac Metal filed this complaint in admiralty in February
2025.12 Plaintiff alleged causes of action against seven defendants. Plaintiff
has since voluntarily dismissed two of the seven defendants. One of the
remaining defendants is Marine Inspection. Plaintiff sued Marine
Inspection for negligence. Marine Inspection now moves to dismiss the
claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted.
The Court considers the motion below.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a plaintiff must plead
enough facts to “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl.
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A claim is facially plausible
“when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the
reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). The Court must accept all well-
11 R. Doc. 1 at 6.
12 R. Doc. 1.
pleaded facts as true and must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the
plaintiff. Lormand v. US Unwired, Inc., 565 F.3d 228, 239, 244 (5th Cir.
2009). But the Court is not bound to accept as true legal conclusions couched
as factual allegations. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
A legally sufficient complaint must establish more than a “sheer
possibility” that the party’s claim is true. See id. It need not contain “detailed
factual allegations,” but it must go beyond “‘labels and conclusions’ or ‘a
formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action.’” See id. (quoting
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). In other words, “[t]he complaint (1) on its face
(2) must contain enough factual matter (taken as true) (3) to raise a
reasonable hope or expectation (4) that discovery will reveal relevant
evidence of each element of a claim.” Lormand, 565 F.3d at 257 (cleaned
up). The claim must be dismissed if there are insufficient factual allegations
“to raise a right to relief above the speculative level,” Twombly, 550 U.S. at
555, or if it is apparent from the face of the complaint that there is an
insuperable bar to relief, see Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 215 (2007).
On a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the Court must limit its review to the
pleadings and attachments. Brand Coupon Network, LLC v. Catalina Mktg.
Corp., 748 F.3d 631, 635 (5th Cir. 2014). The Court may also consider
documents attached to a motion to dismiss or an opposition to that motion
when the documents are referred to in the pleadings and are central to a
plaintiff’s claims. Id.
A plaintiff must cross “the line from conceivable to plausible” for each
element of its claim. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. A claim for negligence in
maritime law requires: (1) a duty owed to Plaintiff, (2) a breach of that duty,
(3) injury, and (4) causation. See In re Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co. LLC,
624 F.3d 201, 211 (5th Cir. 2010).
III. DISCUSSION
Here, accepting as true plaintiff’s well-pleaded allegations, plaintiff has
not crossed the line from conceivable to plausible. While Mac Metal alleges
a duty and injury, Mac Metal does not plausibly allege either a breach of that
duty or such a breach’s causation of its injuries.
As to duty, it is plausible that Marine Inspection owed Mac Metal a
duty to perform inspection of the cargo with reasonable care. There is,
however, nothing in the pleadings to suggest that Marine Inspection failed
to exercise such reasonable care. See S. C. Loveland, Inc. v. East West
Towing, Inc., 608 F.2d 160, 165 (5th Cir. 1979). The complaint reflects that
Marine Inspection inspectors tried to access the M/V Lowlands Fidelity and
were denied access.13 In fact, the complaint alleges that Marine Inspection
13 R. Doc. 1 at 4-5.
carried out the inspection of T-13995 when it was given access to the barge
three days later, and that Marine Inspection reported the water aboard the
barge following the inspection.14 No facts suggest that there was anything
else the Marine Inspection inspectors could have done.
Mac Metal further has not plausibly alleged that Marine Inspection’s
actions caused the deterioration of their steel coils. Negligence is actionable
under general maritime law if it is a substantial factor in causing the injuries.
In re Great Lakes Dredge, 624 F.3d at 214. Here, there is no allegation
suggesting that Marine Inspection had a substantial role in causing water to
be in either the M/V Lowlands Fidelity or the Ingram barges. On the
contrary, plaintiff alleges that when Marine Inspection accessed the Ingram
barges, the steel was already in the water. Further, Marine Inspection
reported its findings that the steel was in water.15 The complaint reflects that
Mac Metal had notice in early March that the coils on board the T-13995 were
in water. Nevertheless, Mac Metal apparently did not intervene, as the coils
remained on the Ingram barges until arrival in Indiana in April. Plaintiff
failed to plausibly plead that Marine Inspection’s alleged breach of duty had
a substantial role in causing its injuries.
14 R. Doc. 1 at 4-5.
15 Id. at 5.
The Court grants Marine Inspection’s motion to dismiss.
B. The Email Chain
A court considering a motion to dismiss generally considers only the
four corners of the complaint. Brand Coupon Network, L.L.C. v. Catalina
Mktg. Corp., 748 F.3d 631, 635 (5th Cir. 2014). If the plaintiff referred to a
document in their complaint that was central to plaintiff’s claim, the court
may consider the document if attached to a motion to dismiss. Id.
Here, Marine Inspection attached a lengthy email chain to the motion
to dismiss. Mac Metal correctly notes that the complaint did not refer to the
email chain. Instead, Mac Metal’s complaint provided a quotation from the
Inspection Report attached to the email chain. As the Inspection Report is
both (1) referred to in the complaint and (2) central to Plaintiff’s claim, the
Court has considered the Inspection Report. The Court has not considered
the remainder of the email chain.
C. Leave to Amend
The court must dismiss with leave to amend “unless the defect is simply
incurable, or the plaintiff has failed to plead with particularity after being
afforded repeated opportunities to do so.” Young v. U.S. Postal Serv. ex rel.
Donahoe, 620 F. App'x 241, 245 (5th Cir. 2015) (quoting Hart v. Bayer
Corp., 199 F.3d 239, 247 n.6 (5th Cir. 2000)). The presumption is that courts
should dismiss a complaint only after “affording every opportunity” to the
plaintiff to state a claim unless it would be futile. Hitt v. City of Pasadena,
561 F.2d 606, 608 (5th Cir. 1977) (per curiam); Briggs v. Miss., 331 F.3d 499,
508 (5th Cir. 2003). An amendment is futile if “it would fail to survive a Rule
12(b)(6) motion.” Marucci Sports, LLC v. Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 751
F.3d 368, 378 (5th Cir. 2014).
This is plaintiffs first complaint. Plaintiff has been afforded only one
opportunity to plead with particularity and has not bungled repeated
opportunities to address the deficiencies of its complaint. Under the
presumption that leave to amend “should be freely granted,” the Court grants
plaintiffs motion to amend. Marucci Sports, LLC, 751 F.3d at 378.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS defendant’s motion to
dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The Court
DISMISSES plaintiffs claim WITHOUT PREJUDICE and with LEAVE TO
AMEND the complaint within fourteen days of this order.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this _13th day of August, 2025.
Aerwk Verte
SARAH S. VANCE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE