govinfo:USCOURTS-laed-2_23-cv-07195-1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA 
 
ATALCO GRAMERCY, LLC     CIVIL ACTION 
V.         NO. 23-7195 
GNOTS-RESERVE, INC. &     SECTION: C (3) 
M/V BURWOOD WISE 
 
ORDER & REASONS 
Before the Court is a Motion for Summary Judgment  (R. Doc. 73) filed by  third-party 
defendants, Associated Marine Equipment, LLC and Associated Terminals Pangea Logistics, 
LLC’s (“Associated”). The motion is DENIED. 
I. BACKGROUND 
This matter arises from an allision on December 7, 2022 while the tug M/V BURRWOOD 
WISE was maneuvering a crane barge, the ALEX G, at a docking facility owned by Atalco. 1 
During the maneuver, the ALEX G made contact with a dock.2 An employee of defendant, Gnots 
Reserve, Inc. was operating the tug.  Atalco brought this action against Gnots seeking recovery for 
the resulting property damage.3 Gnots third-partied Associated alleging fault for the allision. 
Associated moved for summary judgment dismissing all claims against it. 4 However, the 
court is informed that Atalco’s claims against Associated have been resolved, making the motion 
moot as to them. The remaining claims relate to Gnots third party demand which essentially asserts 
fault on the part of Associated . Associated argues: (1) it cannot be liable to G nots under the 
dominant mind doctrine because it had no operational control over the ALEX G at the time of the 
 
1  See R. Doc. 73-1; R. Doc. 82-2; R. Doc. 84-1.  
2  See R. Doc. 73-1; R. Doc. 82-2; R. Doc. 84-1. 
3  R. Doc. 1. 
4  R. Doc. 73. 
Case 2:23-cv-07195-WJC-EJD     Document 96     Filed 04/10/26     Page 1 of 4
allision; (2) Gnots cannot establish the fendering system of the ALEX G was negligently designed; 
and (3) Atalco’s contractual indemnity claim fails because Associated was not performing 
“services” under the stevedoring agreement at the time of the allision.5  
II. LEGAL STANDARD 
Summary judgment is appropriate where “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). The Court 
must view the record in the light most favorable to the non-moving parties and draw all reasonable 
inferences in their favor. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp. , 475 U.S. 574, 587 
(1986). Conclusory allegations, speculation, and unsubstantiated assertions do not create a genuine 
issue for trial. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325 (1986). Where the non -movant bears 
the burden of proof at trial, the movant may satisfy its summary judgment burden by pointing to 
the absence of evidence supporting the non-movant’s case, shifting the burden to the non-movant 
to present competent summary judgment proof demonstrating a genuine dispute of material fact. 
Id. at 322; see also Moody v. Jefferson Parish Sch. Bd., 2 F.3d 604, 606 (5th Cir. 1993). 
Under general maritime law, a negligence claim requires proof of (1) a duty owed; (2) 
breach of that duty; (3) causation; and (4) damages. In re Cooper/T. Smith, 929 F.2d 1073, 1077 
(5th Cir. 1991); Lloyd’ s Leasing Ltd. v. Conoco, 868 F.2d 1447, 1449 (5th Cir. 1989). The standard 
of care in admiralty is one of ordinary care under the circumstances, informed by statutes, 
regulations, maritime custom, and general negligence principles. Consol. Aluminum Corp. v. C.F . 
Bean Corp., 833 F.2d 65, 67 (5th Cir. 1987). 
 
5  Id. at 6–13. 
Case 2:23-cv-07195-WJC-EJD     Document 96     Filed 04/10/26     Page 2 of 4
III. ANALYSIS 
 A. Gnots’ Negligent Design Claim 
Associated invokes the dominant mind doctrine, which provides that only the vessel in 
control of a tug -and-tow operation is liable, even if the entire tow causes the alleged damage. 
Plains Pipeline, L.P. v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co., 54 F. Supp. 3d 586, 589 (E.D. La. 2014). 
The doctrine is a fault -allocation tool for navigational incidents. Cont’l Ins. Co. v. L&L Marine 
Trans., Inc., 882 F.3d 566, 574 (5th Cir. 2018). It does not extinguish the duty a barge owner owes 
to tender a seaworthy vessel. See 2 Thomas J. Schoenbaum, Admiralty and Maritime Law § 12-3 
(6th ed. 2018) (tow owner independently warrants seaworthiness of vessel tendered for towage). 
Because Gnots claims a design defect independent of Gnots’ navigational decisions, the dominant 
mind doctrine does not support summary judgment. 
On the merits, Gnots relies on Robert Bartlett, a licensed engineer, who opines that the 
ALEX G fender was capable of hooking the dock rather than deflecting contact, thus, the barge 
was designed defectively and was unseaworthy .6   Associated responds with Brandon Taravella, 
Ph.D., P.E., who opines that the ALEX G’s tire -fender system was customary and standard 7 The 
competing opinions on the adequacy of the barge’s fender design present genuine issues of 
material fact that preclude summary judgment. See Duplantis v. Shell Offshore, Inc., 948 F.2d 187, 
190 (5th Cir. 1991); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249 (1986). 
Associated’s argument that the tug c aptain’s knowledge of the fender system eliminates 
the design defect claim also fails at summary judgment. The captain testified he knew the tires 
were fixed to the barge with a pipe . Whether that knowledge is sufficient to negate all or part of 
the fault that could attach to Associated’s alleged design defect is a question best reserved for trial. 
 
6  R. Doc. 82-1 at 12, 14–15. 
7  R. Doc. 73-6 at 3-6. 
Case 2:23-cv-07195-WJC-EJD     Document 96     Filed 04/10/26     Page 3 of 4
IV . CONCLUSION 
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by third-party defendants 
Associated Marine Equipment, LLC and Associated Terminals Pangaea Logistics, LLC (R. Doc. 
73) is DENIED. 
 
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 10th day of April, 2026. 
 
 
WILLIAM J. CRAIN 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 
 
Case 2:23-cv-07195-WJC-EJD     Document 96     Filed 04/10/26     Page 4 of 4

Passage view · GavelSight