Liskow secured a complete summary judgment for Methanex in a personal injury suit, Knight v. Turner Industries Group, L.L.C., et al., No. 23-469 (M.D. La.). Despite opposing the motion for summary judgment by seeking discovery under Rule 56(d), the court denied the plaintiff’s request, holding that plaintiff (1) failed to explain how the evidence he sought would affect the statutory employer status of Methanex, and (2) failed to diligently pursue discovery. The court’s ruling confirms that statutory employers are entitled to tort immunity under the Louisiana Workers’ Compensation Act (“LWCA”) for non-intentional torts, and that plaintiffs cannot rely on vague discovery requests to avoid summary judgment.
Matter Background
Plaintiff filed this personal injury action in the 19th Judicial District Court for East Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana, against Methanex USA, LLC, Methanex Louisiana, LLC (collectively “Methanex”), Turner Industries Group LLC (“Turner”), ScaffSource, LLC, and Brock Services, LLC. Plaintiff alleged that he sustained injuries while working for Turner at the Methanex plant in Geismar, Louisiana, when a valve that was being installed slipped from a crane due to the flagger and rigger not being qualified, among other safety concerns. Plaintiff asserted claims against all defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and intentional tort.
Methanex removed the matter to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana, asserting that Turner, the only non-diverse defendant, was improperly joined, and thus, diversity jurisdiction existed. Methanex asserted that the LWCA is the exclusive remedy against an employer like Turner, and Plaintiff’s conclusive allegations of intentional tort failed to state a cognizable exception to that exclusive remedy. Methanex also moved to dismiss the intentional tort claim against it for failure to meet the pleading standards under Rule 12(b)(6). The court agreed with Methanex in both regards, leaving only Plaintiff’s negligence claims against Methanex.
Methanex then filed a motion for summary judgment, seeking dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims in their entirety based on the tort immunity afforded to statutory employers under the LWCA. Plaintiff opposed the motion for summary judgment, asserting that “crucial” evidence was allegedly within Methanex’s control and discovery was needed under Rule 56(d) to adequately oppose the motion for summary judgment. The court disagreed with the Plaintiff granting Methanex’s motion.
Results
First, the court found that Plaintiff only “vaguely” asserted the types of evidence he wished to gain through discovery and failed to indicate what specific facts he expects to uncover from the evidence that was related to the statutory employer defense. The court further noted that even if discovery could affect the defense, a question the court left up for debate, Plaintiff failed to diligently pursue discovery in the case. Because Plaintiff failed to carry his burden that discovery was needed, the court denied his Rule 56(d) discovery request.
Second, the court found that under the plain language of Methanex’s contract with Turner, Methanex was entitled to a rebuttable presumption that it was the statutory employer of Plaintiff when he was allegedly injured at the Geismar plant. Additionally, the court recognized that turnaround work, like the work Plaintiff was performing during the incident, is historically recognized as part of the plant operator’s trade, business, or occupation. Based on these undisputed facts, the court found that Plaintiff was unable to rebut the presumption in favor of Methanex. The court therefore held that Methanex was entitled to tort immunity under the LWCA and dismissed the entirety of Plaintiff’s claims with prejudice. A copy of the court’s opinion can be found here.
Kathryn Gonski and Melanie Derefinko handled this matter for Methanex. For further information about Liskow’s experience, visit the firm’s Energy Litigation and Personal Injury practice pages.