In re: M/V AET EXCELLENCE and M/V AET INNOVATOR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
GALVESTON DIVISION
IN RE M/V AET EXCELLENCE AND
M/V AET INNOVATOR
§
§
§
§
§
3:23-cv-167
ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
On February 28, 2024, all pretrial matters in this consolidated triple
limitation proceeding were referred to United States Magistrate Judge Andrew M.
Edison under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Dkt. 37. Judge Edison filed a memorandum
opinion, order, and recommendation on November 7, 2025, denying the plaintiffs’
motion to bifurcate, Dkt. 103, and recommending that three pending motions for
summary 	judgment, 	Dkts. 	71, 	74, 	75, 	be denied, 	except 	that 	the 	plaintiffs’
unseaworthiness claim against AET should be dismissed. Dkt. 129.
On November 21, 2025, the plaintiffs and third-party defendants Harbor
Offshore 	Marine, 	Inc. 	and 	M/V 	Excalibur 	(collectively, 	“HOM”) 	filed 	their
objections to the memorandum opinion, order, and recommendation. Dkts. 130,
131. HOM objects to Judge Edison’s recommendation that its motion for summary
judgment, Dkt. 71, be denied. Dkt. 130. The plaintiffs object only to Judge Edison’s
order denying their motion to bifurcate. Dkt. 131 at 2 n.1. Two different standards
of review govern these objections.
Judge Edison’s ruling denying the plaintiffs’ motion for bifurcation is a
non-dispositive pretrial order. See, e.g., Mahoney v. Ernst & Young LLP, 487 F.
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
December 17, 2025
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 3:23-cv-00167 Document 142 Filed on 12/17/25 in TXSD Page 1 of 3

2
Supp. 2d 780, 798 (S.D. Tex. 2006). Objections to non-dispositive pretrial orders
will be sustained only “where it has been shown that the magistrate judge’s order
is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); see also Fed. R.
Civ. P. 72(a). The clear error standard is “highly deferential” and “the court
[should] affirm the decision of the magistrate judge unless on the entire evidence
[the court] is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been
committed.” Baylor Health Care Sys. v. Equitable Plan Servs., Inc., 955 F. Supp.
2d 678, 689 (N.D. Tex. 2013) (quotation omitted). This situation does not meet
that standard. The plaintiffs’ objections to Judge Edison’s order denying their
motion for bifurcation are overruled.
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court is required to “make
a de novo determination of those portions of the [magistrate judge’s] report or
specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection [has been]
made.” After conducting this de novo review, the court may “accept, reject, or
modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the
magistrate judge.” Id.; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).
The court has carefully considered the objections; the memorandum and
recommendation; the pleadings; and the record. The court accepts Judge Edison’s
memorandum and recommendation and adopts it as the opinion of the court. It is
therefore ordered that:
(1) 	Judge Edison’s memorandum and recommendation, Dkt. 129, is
approved and adopted in its entirety as the holding of the court; and
Case 3:23-cv-00167 Document 142 Filed on 12/17/25 in TXSD Page 2 of 3

3
(2) 	All three motions for summary judgment, Dkts. 71, 74, and 75, are
denied, with the exception that the plaintiffs’ unseaworthiness claim
against AET is dismissed.
SIGNED on Galveston Island this 17th day of December, 2025.
______________________________
JEFFREY VINCENT BROWN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 3:23-cv-00167 Document 142 Filed on 12/17/25 in TXSD Page 3 of 3