Court Opinion

ID: 9369905
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-10 01:00:33.651135+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:17.492417
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-30420        Document: 00516640751             Page: 1      Date Filed: 02/09/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit                                       United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                       Fifth Circuit

                                                                                     FILED
                                                                              February 9, 2023
                                       No. 22-30420                             Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                     Clerk

   Jerode Garner,

                                                                                 Plaintiff,

                                            versus

   Pontchartrain Partners, L.L.C.,

                                                                 Defendant—Appellant,

                                            versus

   Z.E. Services, L.L.C.,

                                                                  Defendant—Appellee.

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Eastern District of Louisiana
                              USDC No. 2:20-CV-1179

   Before Graves, Ho, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*

         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-30420          Document: 00516640751              Page: 2       Date Filed: 02/09/2023

                                           No. 22-30420

          Pontchartrain Partners, LLC appeals the district court’s grant of
   summary judgment to Z.E. Services, LLC in this action stemming from a
   maritime personal injury suit and the borrowed servant defense. Because the
   district court did not err, we AFFIRM.
                       FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
          Jerode Garner was injured while working as a deckhand aboard a small
   tugboat, M/V MARY JANE, owned and operated by Pontchartrain
   Partners. 1 The tugboat was being used in a Grand Isle breakwaters project in
   Jefferson Parish, Louisiana. Pursuant to the project, Pontchartrain Partners
   had entered into a Service Agreement for Z.E. Services (“Zealous”) to
   provide a captain to operate the tug on navigable waters off the coast of
   Louisiana. Captain Kevin Morgan was the Zealous employee provided to
   Pontchartrain Partners to operate the tug. Nick Dufrene was the project
   supervisor for Pontchartrain Partners.
          Pontchartrain’s work on the project involved transporting rocks from
   one end of the jobsite to the other on a barge hooked to the tug. Low Land
   Construction Company, Inc. was the owner of a living-quarters barge
   outfitted with an excavator that was also used on the project. The Low Land
   excavator operator would pick up the rocks from a large rock barge and
   transfer them to the barge hooked to the tug. Morgan would then navigate
   the tug to the unloading site before returning for more rocks.
          On January 13, 2020, as the barge attached to the tug was being
   unloaded, Garner attempted to cross from the barge to the living-quarters
   barge. The barges began to separate, and Garner fell into the water. Garner
   filed suit against Pontchartrain Partners and Low Land, seeking damages for

          1
              The merits of the underlying suit are not at issue here.

                                                  2
Case: 22-30420         Document: 00516640751                 Page: 3   Date Filed: 02/09/2023

                                          No. 22-30420

   his alleged injuries based on various violations under maritime law by
   Pontchartrain Partners and Low Land. Garner’s suit, in part, claimed that
   the companies are vicariously liable for Morgan’s negligence. Garner’s
   complaint was later amended to add Zealous as a defendant.
          Zealous filed a cross-claim against Pontchartrain Partners, arguing
   that the contract between the parties “included a standard ‘knock-for-knock’
   indemnity agreement whereby Pontchartrain agreed to defend and indemnify
   Zealous for injuries to any Pontchartrain employee.” Additionally, Zealous
   asserted that, if it were to be held strictly liable for any reason, it was claiming
   tort indemnity and contribution.              Pontchartrain Partners later filed a
   crossclaim against Low Land and Zealous, seeking indemnification and
   contribution for amounts it paid to Garner.
          Zealous subsequently moved for summary judgment on the basis that
   Morgan was the borrowed employee 2 of Pontchartrain Partners at the time
   of the incident. The district court agreed, and the motion was granted on
   June 13, 2022. Pontchartrain Partners then filed this appeal.
                                STANDARD OF REVIEW
          We review the district court’s grant of a motion for summary
   judgment de novo, viewing all facts and evidence in the light most favorable
   to the nonmoving party. Burell v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 820 F.3d 132,
   136 (5th Cir. 2016). Summary judgment is proper when “the movant shows
   that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is
   entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). “A genuine
   dispute of material fact exists if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury
   could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Credeur v. La. through Office

          2
              Also referred to as borrowed servant herein.

                                                3
Case: 22-30420      Document: 00516640751           Page: 4    Date Filed: 02/09/2023

                                     No. 22-30420

   of the Att’y Gen., 860 F.3d 785, 791 (5th Cir. 2017) (internal marks and
   citation omitted). We also review de novo a determination that an employee
   is a borrowed servant. Gaudet v. Exxon Corp., 562 F.2d 351, 356 (5th Cir.
   1977); see also Ruiz v. Shell Oil Co., 413 F.2d 310, 314 (5th Cir. 1969).
                                   DISCUSSION
          The issue here is whether Morgan was Pontchartrain Partners’
   borrowed servant. Pontchartrain Partners asserts that the district court erred
   in granting summary judgment because a borrowed employee relationship
   could not be established under the nine factors set out in Ruiz. Those factors
   are:
          (1) Who has control over the employee and the work he is
          performing, beyond mere suggestion of details or cooperation?
          (2) Whose work is being performed?
          (3) Was there an agreement, understanding, or meeting of the
          minds between the original and the borrowing employer?
          (4) Did the employee acquiesce in the new work situation?
          (5) Did the original employer terminate his relationship with
          the employee?
          (6) Who furnished tools and place for performance?
          (7) Was the new employment over a considerable length of
          time?
          (8) Who had the right to discharge the employee?
          (9) Who had the obligation to pay the employee?
   Mays v. Dir., Office of Workers’ Comp. Programs, 938 F.3d 637, 642 (5th Cir.
   2019); see also Ruiz, 413 F.2d at 312-13.
          Pontchartrain Partners asserts that these factors, as a whole, strongly
   weigh against a finding that Morgan was its borrowed employee. We
   disagree, as follows.

                                           4
Case: 22-30420         Document: 00516640751          Page: 5   Date Filed: 02/09/2023

                                       No. 22-30420

   (1) Control over employee
          This court has said that this factor is the “central question in
   borrowed servant cases.” Mays, 938 F.3d at 642 ) (citation omitted); see also
   Guidry v. S. La. Contractors, Inc., 614 F.2d 447, 455 (5th Cir. 1980).
          Pontchartrain Partners asserts that it “did not exercise authoritative
   direction and control” over Morgan. Instead, it argues that Morgan’s day-
   to-day instruction came from Low Land Construction, and that Morgan
   himself determined how he navigated the tugboat or performed his work.
   Pontchartrain Partners also points to Morgan’s deposition testimony
   agreeing that he was always a Zealous employee throughout his tenure on the
   project. Additionally, Pontchartrain Partners relies on Morgan’s experience
   as a vessel captain as an indication that he required less supervision than, for
   example, a laborer.
          Pontchartrain Partners cites In re Suard Barge Services, Inc., No. 96-
   3185, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18864, 3 at *11 (E.D. La. Nov. 25, 1997), as
   authority in its discussion of control, saying there was “no meeting of the
   minds” here to support a borrowed servant finding. Not only is Suard non-
   binding, but that court was referencing the third factor in which it found that
   “[t]here was no agreement—written or oral, implicit or explicit” between
   the two employers. Id. Suard is easily distinguished because there was an
   agreement or meeting of the minds here, as Pontchartrain Partners concedes
   pursuant to factor three.
          Pontchartrain Partners conflates having control with the degree to
   which it was necessary to exercise control. Further, the question is not
   whether Morgan was an employee of Pontchartrain Partners, but rather

          3
              1997 WL 736693, at *4.

                                            5
Case: 22-30420      Document: 00516640751          Page: 6   Date Filed: 02/09/2023

                                    No. 22-30420

   whether he was a borrowed employee of Pontchartrain Partners. Despite
   Morgan’s testimony that he interacted most often with the excavator
   operator from Low Land (because their jobs intertwined), he repeatedly
   testified that Nick Dufrene from Pontchartrain Partners oversaw the
   operation.    Dufrene held the daily safety briefings and provided daily
   instructions. Morgan also testified that he did not take any instructions from
   Zealous while at the Pontchartrain Partners’ jobsite. Rather, Morgan said he
   was told by Zealous to pick up the tug, go to Grand Isle and work as directed
   by Pontchartrain Partners.       Morgan said that Pontchartrain Partners
   controlled the entire job, including his portion.
          Additionally, the Service Agreement said: “[Zealous’] services shall
   be administered and approved by a designated [Pontchartrain Partners’]
   employee.” The agreement included a provision allowing Pontchartrain
   Partners to terminate the agreement for various reasons, including
   “unacceptable performance.” The agreement also said that Zealous was
   “cautioned to disregard guidance pertaining to the interpretation of specific
   requirement to the contract or modifications to the contract, during the
   period of performance, from any source other than” Pontchartrain Partners.
          Moreover, this court has previously addressed similar arguments. In
   Melancon v. Amoco Production Co., 834 F.2d 1238 (5th Cir. 1988), this court
   concluded that, “[t]he fact that Melancon had specialized welding skills he
   utilized in most of his work and none of the Amoco personnel had similar
   welding expertise does not bar a finding of ‘borrowed employee’ status.” Id.
   at 1245 (citation omitted). The same applies to Morgan’s expertise and
   experience in operating a tugboat.
          Accordingly, this factor weighs heavily in favor of a borrowed
   employee relationship.
   (2) Whose work being performed

                                          6
Case: 22-30420        Document: 00516640751          Page: 7   Date Filed: 02/09/2023

                                      No. 22-30420

             Pontchartrain Partners concedes that Morgan was performing its
   work. Thus, this factor weighs in favor of a borrowed employee relationship.
   (3) Agreement between employers
             Pontchartrain Partners concedes that there was a Service Agreement,
   discussed above, but disputes the effect of the agreement as it pertains to
   other factors as discussed herein. This factor weighs in favor of a borrowed
   servant relationship.
   (4) Acquiescence
             Pontchartrain Partners argues that this factor is neutral because
   Morgan testified that he was always an employee of Zealous, and his
   employment never transferred to Pontchartrain Partners. However, that is
   not the standard for acquiescence.
             In Melancon, this court concluded that Melancon had acquiesced,
   saying that he knew when he began work at the new employer, knew what his
   work conditions would be, and made no complaints. Id., 834 F.2d at 1246.
   In a more recent case, this court said: “The question is not whether [Morgan]
   agreed to become [Pontchartrain Partners’] employee but whether he was
   aware of his work conditions and chose to continue working in them.” Mays,
   938 F.3d at 645 (internal marks and citation omitted). This factor weighs in
   favor of a borrowed servant relationship.
   (5) Termination
             Pontchartrain Partners asserts that Zealous never terminated its
   relationship with Morgan, and this factor weighs against borrowed servant
   status.
             This court has said: “This factor does not require a lending employer
   to sever completely its relationship with the employee, because such a
   requirement would effectively eliminate the ‘borrowed employee’

                                           7
Case: 22-30420        Document: 00516640751          Page: 8   Date Filed: 02/09/2023

                                      No. 22-30420

   doctrine.” Melancon, 834 F.2d at 1246. “The emphasis when considering
   this factor should focus on the lending employer’s relationship with the
   employee while the borrowing occurs.” Capps v. N.L. Baroid-NL Indus., Inc.,
   784 F.2d 615, 618 (5th Cir. 1986). In Melancon, this court concluded that the
   lending employer’s control was “nominal at most” while he worked for the
   borrowing employer. 834 F.2d at 1246. Here, Zealous’ control over Morgan
   was also nominal at most. There is no evidence that Zealous was exercising
   any control over Morgan’s daily performance or duties while Morgan was
   working on the Pontchartrain Partners’ job.
             This factor weighs in favor of a borrowed servant relationship.
   (6) Tools and place
             Pontchartrain Partners concedes that this factor weighs in favor of a
   borrowed servant status but asserts it should be of little weight because,
   under the agreement, Zealous would not have been in a position to provide
   the materials or tools (the vessel and oil) needed for the job. We agree that
   this factor weighs in favor of a borrowed servant relationship.
   (7) Time period
             Pontchartrain Partners argues that the three-month time period that
   Morgan worked as its captain was neither substantial nor insubstantial, and
   this factor should be neutral. We agree that it is neutral. See Mays, 938 F.3d
   at 646.
   (8) Right to discharge
             Pontchartrain Partners characterizes Morgan’s testimony as meaning
   he would voluntarily leave the job site if Pontchartrain Partners was unhappy
   with his work. Pontchartrain Partners argues, “[t]his voluntary undertaking
   does not translate to a right to terminate employment,” and points to its own
   declaration that it did not retain any right to terminate Morgan.

                                            8
Case: 22-30420     Document: 00516640751          Page: 9    Date Filed: 02/09/2023

                                   No. 22-30420

          That interpretation contradicts the Service Agreement, as quoted
   above, and the actual effect of the relevant provision. The agreement clearly
   provides that Pontchartrain Partners had the right to terminate Morgan as its
   borrowed employee. Pontchartrain Partners’ perceived inability to terminate
   Morgan as an employee of Zealous has no bearing. This factor weighs in
   favor of a borrowed servant relationship.
   (9) Payment
          Pontchartrain Partners asserts that Zealous was responsible for paying
   Morgan, and this factor weighs against borrowed servant status. But, as the
   district court found, Morgan’s daily rate was included in the contract price.
   The agreement said that Zealous would provide a captain to Pontchartrain
   Partners for $550 per day, “inclusive of all wages, per diem and insurances.”
   At the time of the agreement, Morgan was making approximately $450 per
   day. Here, the payments were indirectly made to Morgan through Zealous
   but were based on the rate for a full day’s work, plus per diem and insurance.
   This court has previously concluded that such payments are consistent with
   a borrowed servant relationship. See Capps, 784 F.2d at 618.
          These factors overwhelmingly support the district court’s ruling.
   Finally, Pontchartrain Partners asserts that summary judgment was
   inappropriate because there is a factual dispute as to whether Morgan was a
   borrowed employee. However, this court has repeatedly said that the issue
   of whether a relationship of borrowed employee exists is a question of law to
   be decided by the court, not the jury. See Gaudet, 562 F.2d at 357-58; Ruiz,
   413 F.2d at 314. Further, Pontchartrain Partners “cannot generate a factual
   dispute merely by contesting the conclusion reached by the court, rather they
   must show that genuine disputes exist over enough determinative factual
   ingredients to make a difference in this result.” Gaudet, 562 F.2d at 358.
   Pontchartrain Partners is unable to do so.

                                         9
Case: 22-30420   Document: 00516640751       Page: 10   Date Filed: 02/09/2023

                              No. 22-30420

         For these reasons, we AFFIRM.

                                   10