Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPLAINT CIVIL ACTION

OF ENVIRONMENTAL, SAFETY &

HEALTH CONSULTING SERVICES, NO. 25-1827

INC., AS OWNER OF THE VESSEL, M/V

MRS. PATSY IN A CAUSE SECTION: "P" (3)

EXONERATION FROM OR

LIMITATION OF LIABILITY

ORDER AND REASONS

Before the Court is Complainant’s Motion for Leave to File Third-Party

Complaint.1 Complainant, Environmental, Safety, and Health Consulting Services,

Inc. (“ES&H”), seeks to file a third-party complaint against Private Workforce

Solutions, L.L.C. (“PWS”), JRon Services, LLC (“JRon”), and their respective

insurance carriers (Scottsdale Insurance Company and Texas Insurance Company).2

PWS and JRon allegedly owe ES&H contractual defense and indemnity obligations

relative to the claims against ES&H that underly this limitation action.3

“Rule 14(c) governs third-party practice in admiralty proceedings and, in some

circumstances, allows a plaintiff to proceed directly against third-party defendants.”

Texas A&M Rsch. Found. v. Magna Transp., Inc., 338 F.3d 394, 399 (5th Cir. 2003).

Complainant is not technically a “defendant,” but it nonetheless may proceed with

filing a third-party complaint under Rule 14(c). See In re Genesis Marine, LLC, No.

CV 24-2881, 2025 WL 1648968, at *2 & n.17 (E.D. La. May 14, 2025) (Brown, J.)

1 R. Doc. 11.

2 R. Doc. 11-4.

3 R. Doc. 11-1 at 2.

(citing In re Texas Petroleum Inv. Co., No. 24-2344, 2025 WL 1282686, at *3 (E.D. La.

May 1, 2025) (Vitter, J.); In re Teon Maria, LLC, No. 12-1315, 2013 WL 12231273, at

*4 (E.D. La. June 10, 2013) (Roby, M.J.); In re Katrina Dredging Limitation Actions

Consolidated Litigation, No. 06-8676, 2008 WL 3876461, at *2 (E.D. La. Aug. 20,

2008) (Duval, J.)). As observed by Judge Vitter, permitting a third-party complaint

in this circumstance serves to “reduce the possibility of inconsistent results in

separate actions, eliminate redundant litigation, and prevent the disappearance of

third parties.” See In re Texas Petroleum Inv. 2025 WL 1282686, at *4.

Moreover, the Court finds that Complainant has invoked admiralty

jurisdiction relative to its third-party complaint. Although the proposed pleading does

not cite to Rule 9(h) as a basis for jurisdiction, ES&H expressly cites this provision

elsewhere in the record to support the filing of the third-party complaint.4 Further,

the proposed pleading does cite to the general maritime law as a basis for subject

matter jurisdiction. Thus, ES&H has provided a sufficient election to proceed under

admiralty pursuant to Rule 9(h). See Smith v. Oceaneering Mobile Workforce LLC,

No. CV 23-469, 2025 WL 3190514, at *2 (E.D. La. Nov. 14, 2025) (“[W]hile the

‘preferred technique is to expressly invoke Rule 9(h),’ ‘a party need not make a specific

reference to Rule 9(h) in order to fall under our admiralty jurisdiction.’”) (quoting Teal

v. Eagle Fleet, Inc., 933 F.2d 341, 345 (5th Cir. 1991)).

4 R. Doc. 11-1 at 3.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for Leave (R. Doc. 11) is GRANTED and

that the proposed pleading be filed in the record.

New Orleans, Louisiana, this 3" day of December, 2025.

f J DOSSIER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE