Guidry v. Apache Corp of DE , 236 F. App'x 24 ( 2007 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
May 30, 2007
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 06-31237
Summary Calendar
KERRY GUIDRY;
BRENDA GUIDRY;
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
versus
APACHE CORPORATION OF DELAWARE;
CHEVRON USA INC;
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
(2:05-CV-1405)
Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Kerry Guidry’s shrimp trawler allided with a section of pipe
while shrimping in the navigable waters of Grand Bayou Blue, a
bayou which crossed an oil field leased by defendant Apache. The
Guidries sued Apache and Chevron for the resulting damages, and the
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion
should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
district court dismissed, granting both defendants’ motions for
summary judgment. The Guidries appeal.
To establish liability the Guidries must prove that the pipe
was owned, maintained, controlled, or placed in position by either
Apache or Chevron. Creppel v. Shell Oil Co., 738 F.2d 699 (5th Cir.
1984). They have presented no summary judgment evidence linking the
pipe to either defendant. Undisputed evidence shows that the pipe
was long-abandoned, submerged near an active public waterway.
Moreover, it was cut at both ends and was not connected to any
equipment owned by either Chevron or Apache. Faced with similar
facts in Creppel, we explained that the plaintiff could not survive
summary judgment without some evidence linking the defendant to the
submerged pipe. It is not enough that the defendants’ operations
were closest to the allision site. Id.The Guidries rely on Gele v. Chevron, 574 F.2d 243 (5th Cir.
1978, where Chief Judge John Brown, writing for the panel, affirmed
liability against Chevron in a similar maritime dispute. Yet the
differences are crucial. In Gele the plaintiff’s vessel struck an
active flare pipe, located in a area where Chevron was the
exclusive operator. Chevron’s control of the pipe was obvious to
the district court, a finding-of-fact further shielded from
appellate inquisitiveness by the clear-error standard of review in
that case. Here, on summary judgment, plaintiffs provided no
2
evidence, except for speculation, linking the pipe to the
defendants. The judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.
3