The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
ERVIN CATRO CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS CASE NO. 25-1137
JEFFREY KIEFER, et al. SECTION: “G”(5)
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is Defendants Venture Global LNG, Inc. and Venture Global Plaquemines
LNG, LLC’s (collectively, “VG Entities”) Rule 12(b)(6) Moton to Dismiss.1 In this litigation,
Plaintiff Ervin Catro (“Plaintiff”) is suing Defendants Venture Global LNG, Inc., Venture Global
Plaquemines LNG, LLC, KZJV, LLC, and Bigge Crane and Rigging Co. (collectively,
“Defendants”) for damages related to a crane collapse that occurred on April 16, 2024.2 In the
instant motion, VG Entities argue that Plaintiff has not stated a tort claim against them under
Louisiana law. Plaintiff opposes the motion.3 Considering the motion, the memoranda in support
and in opposition, the record, and the applicable law, the Court grants the motion in part and denies
the motion in part.
I. Background
Plaintiff alleges that on or about April 16, 2024 he was employed by Baker Gulf Coast
Industrial LLC, and at that time he was working on a job site owned by VG Entities.4 Plaintiff
1 Rec. Doc. 18.
2 Rec. Doc. 2-1. Plaintiff also named Zachry Construction Corp. and Jeffrey Kiefer as defendants, but he
subsequently dismissed those claims.
3 Rec. Doc. 25.
4 Rec. Doc. 2-1 at 3.
alleges that Bigge Crane and Rigging Co. provided the cranes for said job site.5 Plaintiff asserts
that he was carefully performing his work when the crane “suddenly and without warning, began
to break, collapse, and/or topple over.”6 Plaintiff alleges that he fell and suffered injuries while
attempting to avoid the path of the crane collapse.7 Plaintiff states that the crane was previously
red tagged for service, and “collapsed the day it was put back into use.”8 Plaintiff asserts that VG
Entities are at fault for the injuries sustained because they intentionally and negligently failed to
maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition, failed to warn of the existence of a dangerous
condition, failed to adequately train their personnel on how to inspect the premises for hazards,
failed to cure a known hazardous condition, failed to ensure the safety of individuals working on
the jobsite, or failed to exercise the appropriate degree of care.9
On April 16, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Petition for Damages against Defendants in the 25th
Judicial Court for the Parish of Plaquemines.10 Defendants removed the case to this Court on June
4, 2025.11 Defendants VG Entities filed the instant Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss on June 17,
2025.12 On August 26, 2025 Plaintiff filed an opposition.13 VG Entities filed a reply brief in further
5 Id.
6 Id.
7 Id.
8 Id.
9 Id. at 3–4.
10 Rec. Doc. 1-1.
11 Rec. Doc. 2. On June 9, 2025, Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed his claims against Jeffrey Kiefer and
Zachry Construction Corp. Rec. Docs. 5, 6.
12 Rec. Doc. 18.
13 Rec. Doc. 25.
support of the motion to dismiss on August 28, 2025.14
II. Parties’ Arguments
A. VG Entities’ Arguments in Support of Their Motion
VG Entities move the Court to dismiss the claims Plaintiff raises against them.15 VG
Entities assert Plaintiff has no cause of action against them under Louisiana law.16 VG Entities
argue that Plaintiff has not identified any actions taken by VG Entities which support the
allegations against them.17 VG Entities assert that “under long-established Louisiana law,
allegations by [Plaintiff] that the VG Entities failed to provide a safe place to work and/or the
failed to correct unsafe working conditions are, by definition, insufficient to establish an
intentional tort.”18
VG Entities also argue that “[Plaintiff] had failed to plead sufficient facts to state a claim
for negligence against them.”19 VG Entities claim that Plaintiff “failed to allege facts establishing
both the specific duty that the VG Entities owed Plaintiff, as well as facts establishing how the VG
Entities breached the duty that they allegedly owed.”20 VG Entities point out that Plaintiff has
merely alleged that they were working on a jobsite owned by VG Entities.21 VG Entities assert
that they cannot be found liable because the conclusory legal conclusions of negligence in the
14 Rec. Doc. 26.
15 Rec. Doc. 18-1.
16 Id. at 1.
17 Id. at 3.
18 Id. at 6.
19 Id. at 7.
20 Id. at 8.
21 Id.
Complaint is insufficient to establish a duty or breach of said duty to Plaintiff.22
B. Plaintiff’s Arguments in Opposition
Plaintiff concedes that he cannot state a claim for an intentional tort against VG Entities.23
However, Plaintiff maintains that he has stated a cognizable claim for negligence in the Petition.24
Alternatively, Plaintiff requests an opportunity to amend the Petition to cure any deficiencies.25
Plaintiff contends he has plead specific factual allegations regarding VG Entities
negligence.26 Plaintiff argues that the Petition includes a clear and concise allegation that VG
Entities violated duties owed to Plaintiff. Plaintiff asserts the allegations, when accepted as true,
show that VG Entities “allowed a dangerous and unsafe crane to exist on its property, be placed
into service, and allowed to collapse and topple over, without warning Plaintiff of said dangers
and/or otherwise preventing the crane from collapsing and toppling over.”27
C. VG Entities Arguments in Reply
VG Entities point out that Plaintiff has conceded that there is no cognizable intentional tort
claim.28 Hence, the intentional tort claim should be “dismissed with prejudice.”29 As to the
negligence claims, VG Entities argues that Plaintiff has not plead specific facts with regards to any
22 Id.
23 Rec. Doc. 25 at 1.
24 Id.
25 Id.
26 Id. at 4.
27 Id. at 5.
28 Rec. Doc. 26 at 1.
29 Id.
alleged negligent act by VG Entities.30 “In other words, the plaintiff had not alleged when, where,
what, why, or how any specific actions of the VG Entities caused the crane collapse.”31 VG Entities
claims the Petition only alleges specific negligent acts by other Defendants and these acts should
not be imputed onto them.32 VG Entities asserts that the only alleged fact in the Petition related to
them is that they “owned the premises.”33 VG Entities concludes by stating the “generic
conclusions in paragraph 11” of the Petition” are “unwarranted factual inferences” that the Court
should disregard.34
III. Legal Standard
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) provides that an action may be dismissed for
“failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.”35 A motion to dismiss for failure to
state a claim is “viewed with disfavor and is rarely granted.”36 “To survive a motion to dismiss, a
complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.’”37 “Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the
speculative level.”38 A claim is facially plausible when the plaintiff has pleaded facts that allow
30 Id. at 2.
31 Id.
32 Id. at 3.
33 Id.
34 Id. at 4.
35 Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
36 Kaiser Aluminum & Chem. Sales, Inc. v. Avondale Shipyards, Inc., 677 F.2d 1045, 1050 (5th Cir. 1982).
37 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)).
38 Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555.
the court to “draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct
alleged.”39
On a motion to dismiss, asserted claims are liberally construed in favor of the claimant,
and all facts pleaded are taken as true.40 However, although required to accept all “well-pleaded
facts” as true, a court is not required to accept legal conclusions as true.41 “While legal conclusions
can provide the framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual allegations.”42
Similarly, “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory
statements” will not suffice.43 The complaint need not contain detailed factual allegations, but it
must offer more than mere labels, legal conclusions, or formulaic recitations of the elements of a
cause of action.44 That is, the complaint must offer more than an “unadorned, the-defendant-
unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.”45 From the face of the complaint, there must be enough factual
matter to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence as to each element of
the asserted claims.46 If factual allegations are insufficient to raise a right to relief above the
speculative level, or if it is apparent from the face of the complaint that there is an “insuperable”
bar to relief, the claim must be dismissed.47
39 Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 663 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556).
40 Leatherman v. Tarrant Cnty. Narcotics Intel. & Coordination Unit, 507 U.S. 163, 164 (1993); see also
Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., 551 U.S. 308, 322–23 (2007).
41 Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678–79.
42 Id. at 679.
43 Id. at 678.
44 Id.
45 Id.
46 Lormand v. U.S. Unwired, Inc., 565 F.3d 228, 257 (5th Cir. 2009).
47 Carbe v. Lappin, 492 F.3d 325, 328 n.9 (5th Cir. 2007); Moore v. Metro. Hum. Serv. Dist., No. 09-6470,
2010 WL 1462224, at * 2 (E.D. La. Apr. 8, 2010) (Vance, J.) (citing Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 215 (2007)).
IV. Analysis
A. Intentional Tort Claims
Here, VG Entities assert that Plaintiff’s allegations are “insufficient to establish an
intentional tort.”48 Plaintiff concedes that he cannot maintain an intentional tort claim against VG
Entities under Louisiana law.49 Therefore, the Court dismisses Plaintiff’s intentional tort claims
against VG Entities.
B. Negligence Claims
Under Louisiana law, a plaintiff asserting negligence must prove:
(1) the defendant had a duty to conform his conduct to a specific standard of care,
that is, the duty element, (2) the defendant’s conduct failed to conform to the
appropriate standard of care, that is, the breach element, (3) the defendant’s
substandard conduct was a cause-in-fact of the plaintiff's injuries, that is, the cause-
in-fact element, (4) the defendant’s substandard conduct was a legal cause of the
plaintiff’s injuries, that is, the scope-of-duty element, and (5) actual damages, that
is, the damages element.50
VG Entities argue that Plaintiff has not alleged facts establishing a duty owed to Plaintiff
or a breach of that duty. Specifically, VG Entities asserts that their ownership of the job site where
the injury occurred is not enough to establish a duty to Plaintiff. Generally, property owners are
not liable for the negligence of an independent contractor working on the property.51 However,
“the owner of a facility has an independent duty to exercise reasonable care for the safety of those
on the premises, including employees of independent contractors.”52 VG Entities do not dispute
48 Rec. Doc. 18-1 at 6.
49 Rec. Doc. 25 at 1.
50 Shelley v. Hilcorp Energy Co., No. 22-1345, 2023 WL 4235563, at *5 (E.D. La. June 28, 2023) (citing
Nagle v. Gusman, 61 F. Supp. 3d 609, 620 (E.D. La. 2014)).
51 See Terese v. 1500 Lorene, LLC, No. 09-4342, 2010 WL 4702369, at *3 (E.D. La. 2010)).
52 Id. (citing Dupre v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 20 F.3d 154, 157 (5th Cir. 1994)).
their alleged ownership of the property where Plaintiff was injured, or that Plaintiff was an
independent contractor working on said property. Therefore, Plaintiff’s specific allegations of VG
Entities’ failure to maintain or inspect the premises to ensure the property was reasonably safe
raises a plausible duty owed to Plaintiff and a plausible breach of such a duty. Thus, Plaintiff has
satisfied the pleading standard for his negligence claims against VG Entities.
VG Entities argue the pleading standard has not been met because Plaintiff’s claims are
conclusory and no reasonable inference of negligence can be drawn from the facts alleged. VG
Entities analogize Shelley v. Hilcorp Energy Co. to the case at bar.53 In Shelley, the court dismissed
the plaintiff’s claims because the allegations within were “speculative, conclusory, and unspecific
to any individual defendant.”54 However, there are notable differences between the facts here and
those in Shelley. Here, Plaintiff’s allegations regarding VG Entities’ negligence do have some
overlap with the allegations made against other defendants. However, there are specific allegations
made only against VG Entities such as failing to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe
condition, failing to warn of the existence of a dangerous condition, failing to adequately train
their personnel on how to inspect the premises for hazards, failing to cure a known hazardous
condition, failing to ensure the safety of individuals working on the jobsite, or failing to exercise
the appropriate degree of care.55 Further, the allegations here differ from those in Shelley because
here the injury occurred on premises owned by VG Entities, while in Shelley the damage occurred
on a navigable waterway.56 Hence, the allegations here are specific to VG Entities as the owners
53 Id.
54 Shelley v. Hilcorp Energy Co., No. 22-1345, 2023 WL 4235563, at *5 (E.D. La. June 28, 2023).
55 Rec. Doc. 2-1 at 3–4.
56 Rec. Doc. 2-1; Shelley, 2023 WL 4235563, at *1.
of the property where the injury occurred. For these reasons, Plaintiff has stated a claim against
VG Entities for negligence under Louisiana law.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants Venture Global Plaquemines LNG, LLC
and Venture Global LNG, Inc.’s Rule 12(b)(6) Moton to Dismiss*’ is GRANTED IN PART and
DENIED IN PART. The motion is GRANTED to the extent it seeks dismissal of Plaintiff's
intentional tort claims. The motion is DENIED in all other respects.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the intentional tort claims raised against the VG
Entities are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA, this _ Ist day of October, 2025.
NANNETTE J VETTE BROWN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
57 Rec. Doc. 18.