Ferrier v. CP Marine Services, LLC et al

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

JONATHAN FERRIER

CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS

NO: 25-2286
CP MARINE SERVICES, LLC, ET AL.
SECTION: "A" (4)

ORDER AND REASONS
The following motion is before the Court: Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment (Rec. Doc. 21) filed by the plaintiff, Jonathan Ferrier. The defendants, CP
Marine Services, LLC and T & M Holdings, LLC., oppose the motion in part. The motion,
submitted for consideration on August 5, 2026, is before the Court on the briefs without
oral argument.
Jonathan Ferrier filed this complaint alleging significant injuries sustained while
working as a deckhand aboard the M/V DOUGLAS on April 6, 2025. Ferrier named as
defendants CP Marine Services, LLC, Ten Mile Exchange, LLC, and T & M Holdings,
LLC. Ferrier alleges that CP Marine was his employer. (Rec. Doc. 12, Amended
Complaint ¶ 5). It is undisputed that T & M Holdings was the titled owner of the M/V
DOUGLAS.
T & M Holdings, as owner of the DOUGLAS, filed a limitation complaint on
August 3, 2026, which was assigned Civil Action no. 26-1694. The limitation proceeding
was transferred to this section and consolidated with Ferrier’s complaint. (Rec. Doc. 32,
Consolidation Order).
A settlement conference before the magistrate judge is scheduled for September
Case 2:25-cv-02286-JCZ-KWR Document 37 Filed 08/13/26 Page 1 of 4

2

22, 2026. (Rec. Doc. 20, Settlement conference order).
A jury trial is scheduled for October 26, 2026. (Rec. Doc. 9, Scheduling Order).
Ferrier now moves for partial summary judgment on two issues: 1) that he
qualifies as a Jones Act seaman; and 2) that CP Marine served as owner pro hac vice
or bareboat charterer of the DOUGLAS on April 6, 2025 (the date of the incident), and
as such was both Ferrier’s Jones Act employer and the entity responsible for the
vessel’s alleged unseaworthiness.
Ferrier does not seek resolution of any disputed issues regarding negligence,
causation, or damages. But Ferrier has appended to his prayer for relief a request to
dismiss T & M Holdings from this matter without prejudice—a request that has been met
with stiff opposition.
Summary judgment is appropriate only if “the pleadings, depositions, answers to
interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any,” when viewed
in the light most favorable to the non-movant, “show that there is no genuine issue as to
any material fact.” TIG Ins. Co. v. Sedgwick James, 276 F.3d 754, 759 (5th Cir. 2002)
(citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249-50 (1986)). A dispute about a
material fact is “genuine” if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a
verdict for the non-moving party. Id. (citing Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248). The court must
draw all justifiable inferences in favor of the non-moving party. Id. (citing Anderson, 477
U.S. at 255). Once the moving party has initially shown “that there is an absence of
evidence to support the non-moving party’s cause,” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S.
317, 325 (1986), the non-movant must come forward with “specific facts” showing a
genuine factual issue for trial. Id. (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e); Matsushita Elec. Indus.
Case 2:25-cv-02286-JCZ-KWR Document 37 Filed 08/13/26 Page 2 of 4

3

Co. v. Zenith Radio, 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986)). Conclusional allegations and denials,
speculation, improbable inferences, unsubstantiated assertions, and legalistic
argumentation do not adequately substitute for specific facts showing a genuine issue
for trial. Id. (citing SEC v. Recile, 10 F.3d 1093, 1097 (5th Cir. 1993)).
When faced with a well-supported motion for summary judgment, Rule 56 places
the burden on the non-movant to designate the specific facts in the record that create
genuine issues precluding summary judgment. Jones .v Sheehan, Young, & Culp, P.C.,
82 F.3d 1334, 1338 (5th Cir. 1996). The district court has no duty to survey the entire
record in search of evidence to support a non-movant’s position. Id. (citing Forsyth v.
Barr, 19 F.3d 1527, 1537 (5th Cir. 1992); Nissho-Iwai Am. Corp. v. Kline, 845 F.2d
1300, 1307 (5th Cir. 1988)).
No party disputes Ferrier’s status as a Jones Act seaman. Ferrier’s motion for
partial summary judgment is therefore GRANTED as to seaman status.
Ferrier and T & M Holdings are aligned in the contention that CP Marine was
operating the DOUGLAS pursuant to a bareboat charter at the time of the incident.
Joseph Dardar, a partner in CP Marine, testified at his deposition that CP Marine
operates the DOUGLAS pursuant to a bareboat charter.
1
(Rec. Doc. 21-6, Dardar
deposition at 10). And in response to Ferrier’s uncontested fact no. 10, CP Marine
admitted without qualification that CP Marine is the owner pro hac vice of the M/V
DOUGLAS. (Rec. Doc. 26-1).
CP Marine seems to have changed course. CP Marine now opposes the

1
Dardar also testified that CP Marine was the owner pro hac vice of the DOUGLAS.
(Dardar deposition at 11).
Case 2:25-cv-02286-JCZ-KWR Document 37 Filed 08/13/26 Page 3 of 4

4

contention that it was operating the DOUGLAS pursuant to a bareboat charter because
no written bareboat charter agreement existed. But the record does include a
Memorandum of Verbal Bareboat Charter Agreement between CP Marine and T and M
Holdings evincing the existence of a bareboat charter. (Rec. Doc. 26-2, Exhibit A). The
Court is persuaded that Ferrier has established that CP Marine served as owner pro
hac vice pursuant to a bareboat charter of the DOUGLAS in effect on the day of his
accident. Ferrier’s motion for partial summary judgment is therefore GRANTED as to
this issue.
Finally, Ferrier seeks a without prejudice dismissal of T & M Holdings, relief
which CP Marine and T & M Holdings oppose. In his reply, Ferrier seems to
acknowledge that he is not entitled to this relief, and the Court agrees. Ferrier’s request
to dismiss T & M Holdings from this action without prejudice is therefore DENIED.
Accordingly, and for the foregoing reasons;
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Rec. Doc. 21)
filed by the plaintiff, Jonathan Ferrier, is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as
explained above.
August 12, 2026
_______________________________
JAY C. ZAINEY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 2:25-cv-02286-JCZ-KWR Document 37 Filed 08/13/26 Page 4 of 4