Gulf Island Shipyards, LLC v. Mediterranean Shipping Company USA Inc.

Background

Gulf Island Shipyards, LLC brought a maritime action concerning damage to a propeller shaft it owned while the shaft was being discharged from a cargo ship owned by MSC Mediterranean Shipping Company S.A. MSC had previously moved for partial summary judgment—a request for judgment on part of a case without a trial—on whether the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act limited any damages available to Gulf Island to $500 per package.

In a March 29, 2023 Opinion and Order, the court declined to resolve that issue. It held that the answer depended on the terms of an MSC Sea Waybill, but MSC had filed one version with its motion for summary judgment and a different version with its reply brief, without explaining the difference.

MSC’s Motion

MSC moved for reconsideration, an extraordinary request asking the court to revisit an earlier ruling. MSC argued that there was no genuine dispute that the waybill filed with its reply was the operative version, that the document limited recovery to $500 per package, and that reconsideration was necessary to prevent manifest injustice. MSC alternatively sought permission to refile its partial summary-judgment motion with declarations stating that the waybill attached to its reply was the operative document.

Court’s Analysis

The court explained that reconsideration is available only in limited circumstances, such as an intervening change in controlling law, newly available evidence, clear error, or manifest injustice. The court found no basis to reconsider its earlier ruling.

MSC had previously attested under penalty of perjury that the waybill attached to its original motion was the operative version. MSC later claimed that version was incomplete because it omitted a third page containing terms and conditions, and that the complete version was unavailable until the reply brief. The court found that explanation inadequate because the two waybills differed in several ways beyond the missing page, and MSC had not explained those differences either previously or in its reconsideration motion.

The court stated that later discovery might support MSC’s position about which waybill governed, and that such evidence could be presented at trial or used in settlement discussions. But MSC had filed its earlier motion before completing discovery and had not supported its claim that the reply version was the operative document. The court therefore declined to give MSC another opportunity to present the issue at the summary-judgment stage.

Disposition

Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil denied MSC’s motion for reconsideration. The clerk was requested to close the motion at ECF No. 91. The opinion does not separately state a disposition for MSC’s alternative request to refile its partial summary-judgment motion.