govinfo:USCOURTS-laed-2_24-cv-01729-1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA 
 
GREAT LAKES INSURANCE SE, ET AL. CIVIL ACTION 
 
VERSUS NO. 24-1729 
 
LA MARCHE MANUFACTURING SECTION: D(1) 
CO., ET AL. 
 
ORDER AND REASONS 
Before the Court is a Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendant 
Southern Power Systems, Inc.1 The motion was set for submission on April 28, 2026, 
with any opposition due by April 20, 2026 .2 No party has filed an opposition to the 
motion. After careful consideration of Defendant’s memorandum, the record, and the 
applicable law, the Court GRANTS the Motion. 
I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 
 This case arises out of a power failure at an Atalco alumina plant in Gramercy, 
Louisiana.3 Atalco contacted Southern Power Systems Inc. (“Southern Power”) in 
May 2019 to discuss the replacement of an inverter and a C&D battery charger in 
one of the buildings at its plant.4 Chambers Industrial Supply Inc. recommended that 
Southern Power install a compatible La Marche charger to replace the current one, 
 
1 R. Doc. 62. 
2 R. Doc. 63. 
3 R. Doc. 62-12. The Court draws the factual allegations from Defendant ’s Statement of Uncontested 
Facts, which the Court accepts as true due to Plaintiffs’ failure to respond and Co-Defendant’s failure 
to include a statement of contested facts in response to the instant Motion. L.R. 56.2 ( “All material 
facts in the moving party’s statement will be deemed admitted, for purposes of the motion, unless 
controverted in the opponent’s statement.”). The Court also supplements Defendant ’s Statement of 
Uncontested Facts with allegations from Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint. (R. Doc. 54). The Court uses 
those facts for context and does not afford them the benefit of the truth. 
4 Id. at ¶ 3. 

2 
 
which Atalco approved.5 Southern Power and Atalco then entered into an agreement 
to install the charger, which provided that “all work [was] to be performed at the 
direction of the Owner’s Contract Administrator,” namely Atalco’s instrument 
electrical superintendent Terry Trepagnier.6 Together, Southern Power and Atalco’s 
lead electrician Todd Bourgeois performed the installation of the charger on 
September 4, 2019, which involved the replacement of the old charger with the new 
charger.7 During the installation process, Atalco never requested that additional 
alarms or gauges be added to the new charger being installed, and Southern Power 
played no role in the configuration or monitoring of the alarms.
8 Approximately four 
years later, on June 29, 2023, Plaintiffs allege that the charger that Southern Power 
installed failed, causing damage to the equipment at Atalco’s plant and the loss of 
production and income. 9 Plaintiffs, Atalco’s insurers, filed suit in the 23rd Judicial 
District Court in St. James Parish in July 2024, alleging claims of product liability 
and negligence against La Marche Manufacturing Co. (“La Marche”) and of 
negligence and breach of contract against Southern Power .10 The case was removed 
to this Court on July 11, 2024.11 
On March 18, 2026, Southern Power filed the instant Motion for Summary 
Judgment, arguing that Plaintiffs cannot meet their burden of proof at a trial on the 
 
5 Id. at ¶¶ 4-5. 
6 Id. at ¶¶ 6-7. 
7 Id. at ¶¶ 8-9. 
8 Id. at ¶¶ 10-11. 
9 Id. at ¶ 2. 
10 R. Doc. 3-3. 
11 R. Doc. 3. 

3 
merits on their claims of negligence and breach of contract against Southern Power.12 
Southern Power contends that the record evidence demonstrates that Atalco 
approved the charger both for purchase and for installation and that the installation 
was performed by Southern Power and Atalco electricians under the direction of 
Atalco.13 Southern Power asserts that there is no evidence that demonstrates a 
relationship between the installation of the charger and the incident at issue in the 
present case.14 
Furthermore, Southern Power maintains that there is no evidence that the 
charger at issue was installed improperly or “that any such installation played a 
causal role in the subject incident.”15 As support for this contention, Southern Power 
points to the testimony of Atalco’s Instrument Electrical Superintendent Terry 
Trepagnier who testified in his deposition that he has no reason to believe that the 
battery charger was installed improperly. 16 As to the installation of alarm outputs, 
Southern Power states that there is no evidence that Southern Power failed to install 
any alarm outputs requested by Atalco regarding the charger. 17 Southern Power 
points 
to Plaintiffs responses to Interrogatories seeking which specific alarm outputs 
and or relays were claimed not to be installed correctly. Plaintiffs responded with 
general objections and did not 
identify any alarm output. 18 Southern Power also 
12 R. Doc. 62-1 at p. 4. 
13 Id. at p. 5. 
14 Id. at p. 6. 
15 Id. at p. 7. 
16 Id. at p. 9. Also see R. Doc. 62-7 at p. 42. (“Q. As we sit here today, do you have any reason to believe 
that that battery charger was installed improperly? A. No, I don't.”) 
17 Id. at pp. 10-11. 
18 Id. 

4 
 
again relies on the testimony of Atalco’s Instrument Electrical Superintendent 
Trepagnier who testified that he, as Atalco’s Superintendent, did not ask for 
additional alarms to be set up.19 Because the breach of contract claim is based on the 
same grounds as the negligence claim, Southern Power argues that the lack of proof 
regarding any improper installation means that it is entitled to summary judgment 
on the breach of contract claim as well.20 In short, Southern Power contends that 
the undisputed evidence clearly establishes that the charger was 
installed properly by Southern Power at the direction of Atalco, that the 
charger and alarm outputs were installed as requested by Atalco, that 
the subject charger operated without issue for four (4) years, and that 
the installation of the charger by Southern Power played no role in the 
subject incident[,]21 
 
which entitles it to summary judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. 
The motion was set for submission on April 28, 2026, with responses in 
opposition due by April 20, 2026.22 No party has responded. The Court now considers 
the motion. 
II. LEGAL STANDARD 
 Summary judgment is appropriate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 
“if 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.” 23 A dispute is “genuine” if it is 
 
19 Id. Also see R. Doc. 62- 7 at pp. 31-32. (“Q. --you did not ask for any additional alarms to be set up, 
correct? A. That is correct.”) 
20 Id. at pp. 11-12. 
21 Id. at p. 12. 
22 R. Doc. 63. 
23 FED. R. CIV. P. 56(a); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 
Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247 (1986). 

5 
 
“real and substantial, as opposed to merely formal, pretended, or a sham.”24 Further, 
a fact is “material” if it “might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing 
law.”25 When assessing whether a genuine dispute regarding any material fact 
exists, the Court considers “all of the evidence in the record but refrain[s] from 
making credibility determinations or weighing the evidence.”
26 While all reasonable 
inferences must be drawn in favor of the nonmoving party, a party cannot defeat 
summary judgment with conclusory allegations, unsubstantiated assertions, or “only 
a scintilla of evidence.”
27 Instead, summary judgment is appropriate if a reasonable 
jury could not return a verdict for the nonmoving party.28 
 If the nonmoving party will bear the burden of proof at trial on the dispositive 
issue, the moving party may satisfy its burden by merely pointing out that the 
evidence in the record is insufficient with respect to an essential element of the 
nonmoving party’s claim.29 The burden then shifts to the nonmoving party who must 
go beyond the pleadings and, “by her own affidavits, or by the ‘depositions, answers 
to interrogatories, and admissions on file,’ designate ‘specific facts showing that there 
is a genuine issue for trial.’”
30 
 
24 Bazan ex rel. Bazan v. Hidalgo Cnty. , 246 F.3d 481, 489 (5th Cir. 2001) (citing Wilkinson v. Powell, 
149 F.2d 335, 337 (5th Cir. 1945)). 
25 Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. 
26 Delta & Pine Land Co. v. Nationwide Agribus. Ins. Co. , 530 F.3d 395, 398– 99 (5th Cir. 2008) 
(citations omitted). 
27 Id. (quoting Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069, 1075 (5th Cir. 1994)) (internal quotation marks 
omitted). 
28 Id. at 399 (citing Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248). 
29 See Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322–23. 
30 Id. at 324 (quoting FED. R. CIV. P. 56(e)). 

6 
 
Finally, a party moving for summary judgment is not entitled to have their 
motion granted simply because their motion is unopposed. 31 Rather, its burden 
remains the same as if the motion was opposed; the moving party must demonstrate 
that there is no genuine dispute of material fact and that they are entitled to 
judgment as a matter of law.32 That being said, where a party fails to file a response 
to a summary judgment motion, the c ourt may accept as undisputed all of the facts 
listed in the moving party’s statement of undisputed material facts.33 
III. ANALYSIS34 
Plaintiff insurers assert two claims against Southern Power: negligence and 
breach of contract. Plaintiffs allege that Southern Power “ breached its duty to the 
Insured by one or more acts and/or omissions constituting negligence ” in its actions 
related to the installation of the battery charger and “ breached its contractual 
objections owed to the Insured through its acts and/or omissions” in its actions related 
to the installation of the battery charger. 35 Defendant Southern Power denies the 
allegations. The Court will address each claim in turn. 
 
 
 
 
31 Homelife in the Gardens, LLC v. Landry, No. 16-CV-15549, 2018 WL 341703, at *2 (E.D. La. Jan. 9, 
2018) (quoting Day v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A., 768 F.3d 435, 435 (5th Cir. 2014) (per curiam)). 
32 Id.; see also FED. R. CIV. P. 56. 
33 See Lamelas v. Abud, No. 22 -CV-739, 2023 WL 3340851, at *1 (E.D. La. May 10, 2023) (quoting 
Gonzales v. Abdurasulov, No. 3:22-CV-654, 2022 WL 2717633, at *1 (W.D. La. July 13, 2022)); see also 
Local Rule 56.2. 
34 This matter is before the Court on diversity jurisdiction, so the Court applies Louisiana law. See 
Weatherly v. Pershing, LLC, 945 F.3d 915, 925 (5th Cir. 2019). 
35 R. Doc. 54 at pp. 7-9. 

7 
 
A. Southern Power is entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ 
negligence claim. 
 
In its motion, Southern Power argues that no evidence exists that the subject 
ch
arger was improperly installed or that Southern Power failed to install the charger 
as directed by Atalco.36 
Louisiana law provides that “[e]very act whatever of man that causes damage 
to another obliges him by whose fault it happened to repair it ” and that “[e] very 
person is responsible for the damage he occasions not merely by his act, but by his 
negligence, his imprudence, or his want of skill. ”37 Louisiana courts utilize a duty -
risk approach to negligence claims. A plaintiff must prove five separate elements: 
(1) the defendant had a duty to conform his or her conduct to a specific 
standard of care; (2) the defendant failed to conform his or her conduct 
to the appropriate standard of care; (3) the defendant's substandard 
conduct was a cause-in-fact of the plaintiff's injuries; (4) the defendant's 
substandard conduct was a legal cause of the plaintiff's injuries; and (5) 
actual damages.
38 
 
“A negative answer to any of the inquiries of the duty/risk analysis results in a 
determination of no liability. ”39 The instant motion centers on the breach and 
causation elements. 
Southern Power claims that there is no evidence that demonstrates that the 
charger at issue was installed improperly and thus that it breached the duty owed to 
Atalco; furthermore, it notes that Terry Trepagnier, Atalco’s instrument electrical 
 
36 R. Doc. 62-1 at p. 4. Southern Power further maintains that there is no evidence to support Plaintiffs’ 
breach of contract claim. Southern Power’s argument as to the breach of contract claim will be 
addressed separately. 
37 La. Civ. C. art 2315, 2316. 
38 Bufkin v. Felipe's Louisiana, LLC, 171 So. 3d 851, 855 (La. 10/15/14). 
39 Hanks v. Entergy Corp., 944 So. 2d 564, 579 (La. 12/18/06). 

8 
 
superintendent in charge of the installation testified that he had no reason to believe 
the battery was installed im properly and that he had no reason to believe that the 
charger was installed differently from the way that Atalco had previously approved.40 
Blake Allen, the modernization manager for Atalco, testified similarly.41 In addition, 
neither the Root Cause Analysis Report commissioned by Atalco in the aftermath of 
the outage nor the report prepared by PCS2000 Lab evaluating the battery charger 
identified the installation of the charger as a cause of the incident at issue.42 
Southern Power likewise contends that there is a lack of evidence that 
Southern Power failed to install certain alarm outputs when installing the battery 
charger.43 Terry Trepagnier testified that Atalco did not request for any additional 
alarms to be set up .44 Furthermore, there is no evidence in the record that Atalco 
requested that any additional alarms be added during the installation of the battery 
charger or that Southern Power failed to install alarms that Atalco did request.45 The 
Root Cause Analysis Report notes that “low voltage alarms were activated,” but states 
that the location of said alarms was ineffective.
46 However, there is no evidence that 
Atalco requested different, different placement, or additional alarms when the 
charger was installed four years prior. 
 
40 R. Doc. 62-1 at p. 9; R. Doc. 62-7, Videotaped Deposition of Terry Trepagnier, at p. 42. 
41 R. Doc. 62-2, Videotaped Deposition of Blake Allen , at p. 146. (“Q: And what about installation? Do 
you have any information that would indicate that this was installed improperly? A: No, sir, I would 
not.”). 
42 See R. Doc. 62-3, Root Cause Analysis Report , at p. 16; see also R. Doc. 62-9, Report of PCS2000 
Atalco Lab Testing and Evaluation of Battery Charger. 
43 R. Doc. 62-1 at p. 10. 
44 R. Doc. 62-7 at pp. 31-32. 
45 See id. at p. 41 (“Q: All right. Do you recall ever requesting Southern Power to add any particular— 
A: No, sir. Q: — outputs or alarms? A: Nothing, no, sir.”). 
46 R. Doc. 62-3 at p. 16. 

9 
 
Plaintiffs have pointed to no affidavits, depositions, answers to interrogatories, 
or other record evidence that demonstrates that a genuine issue of material fact exists 
as to whether Defendant’s negligence caused the subject incident. Because Plaintiffs 
have failed to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact regarding the causation 
and breach of the alleged negligence, nor has the Court found one on the evidence 
before it, both essential elements of a negligence claim under Louisiana law , 
summary judgment on this claim is appropriate. 
B. Southern Power is entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ 
breach of contract claim. 
 
Southern Power argues that because the breach of contract claim is 
“essentially the same as [Plaintiff’s] negligence claim,” it is entitled to summary 
judgment on this claim as well because there is no evidence that it installed the 
charger improperly.47 
Under the Louisiana Civil Code, “[a]n obligor is liable for the damages caused 
by his failure to perform a conventional obligation. A failure to perform results from 
nonperformance, defective performance, or delay in performance. ”48 “The essential 
elements of a breach of contract claim are (1) the obligor's undertaking an obligation 
to perform, (2) the obligor failed to perform the obligation (the breach), and (3) the 
failure to perform resulted in damages to the obligee.”49 
 
47 R. Doc. 62-1. 
48 La. Civ. C. art 1994. 
49 Favrot v. Favrot , 68 So. 3d 1099, 1108–09 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2/9/11), writ denied, 62 So. 3d 127 (La. 
5/6/11). 

10 
 
 The breach of contract claim rests on whether Southern Power undertook an 
obligation to perform and failed to perform that obligation. Similar to the negligence 
claim, it requires proof that Southern Power improperly installed the charger at 
issue. In arguing that it is entitled to summary judgment on the negligence claim, 
Southern Power has both pointed to record evidence that demonstrates that the 
battery charger was not installed improperly and noted that there is a lack of 
evidence that improper installation led to the incident at issue in the present case.50 
Defendant Southern Power, the movant, has pointed to the lack of record 
evidence regarding essential elements of Plaintiffs’ claims , namely that Southern 
Power rendered defective performance of its obligations in the contract . As the 
Plaintiffs will bear the burden of proof at trial, the burden on summary judgment has 
shifted, and Plaintiffs have now failed to go beyond the pleadings to demonstrate 
“specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial” on the breach of contract 
claim.51 A fter a reasonable time for discovery, summary judgment is appropriate 
“against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of 
an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden 
of proof at trial .”52 For that reason, the Court finds that summary judgment should 
be granted. 
Because there is no genuine dispute of material fact, Defendant Southern 
Power, Systems, Inc., is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on this claim as well. 
 
50 R. Doc. 62-1 at pp. 11-12. 
51 Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324, 106 S. Ct. 2548, 91 L. Ed. 2d 265 (1986). 
52 Id. at 322. 

11 
 
IV. CONCLUSION 
For the foregoing reasons, 
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Southern Power Systems, Inc.’s 
Motion for Summary Judgment53 is GRANTED. 
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendant 
Southern Power Systems, Inc., are DISMISSED with prejudice. 
New Orleans, Louisiana, May 26, 2026. 
 
_____________________________ 
WENDY B. VITTER 
United States District Judge 
 
 
53 R. Doc. 62. 

Passage view · GavelSight