In Re: Environmental, Safety & Health Consulting Services, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPLAINT
OF ENVIRONMENTAL, SAFETY &
HEALTH CONSULTING SERVICES,
INC., AS OWNER OF THE VESSEL, M/V
MRS. PATSY IN A CAUSE
EXONERATION FROM OR
LIMITATION OF LIABILITY
CIVIL ACTION
NO. 25-1827
SECTION: "P" (3)
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is Complainant’s Motion for Leave to File Third-Party
Complaint.1 Complainant, Environmental, Safety, and Health Consulting Services,
Inc. (“ES&H”), seeks to file a third-party complaint against Private Workforce
Solutions, 	L.L.C. 	(“PWS”), 	JRon 	Services, 	LLC 	(“JRon”), 	and 	their 	respective
insurance carriers (Scottsdale Insurance Company and Texas Insurance Company).2
PWS and JRon allegedly owe ES&H contractual defense and indemnity obligations
relative to the claims against ES&H that underly this limitation action.3
“Rule 14(c) governs third-party practice in admiralty proceedings and, in some
circumstances, allows a plaintiff to proceed directly against third-party defendants.”
Texas A&M Rsch. Found. v. Magna Transp., Inc., 338 F.3d 394, 399 (5th Cir. 2003).
Complainant is not technically a “defendant,” but it nonetheless may proceed with
filing a third-party complaint under Rule 14(c). See In re Genesis Marine, LLC, No.
CV 24-2881, 2025 WL 1648968, at *2 & n.17 	(E.D. La. May 14, 2025) (Brown, J.)
1 R. Doc. 11.
2 R. Doc. 11-4.
3 R. Doc. 11-1 at 2.
Case 2:25-cv-01827-DJP-EJD Document 14 Filed 12/03/25 Page 1 of 3

(citing In re Texas Petroleum Inv. Co., No. 24-2344, 2025 WL 1282686, at *3 (E.D. La.
May 1, 2025) (Vitter, J.); In re Teon Maria, LLC, No. 12-1315, 2013 WL 12231273, at
*4 (E.D. La. June 10, 2013) (Roby, M.J.); In re Katrina Dredging Limitation Actions
Consolidated Litigation, No. 06-8676, 2008 WL 3876461, at *2 (E.D. La. Aug. 20,
2008) (Duval, J.)). 	As observed by Judge Vitter, permitting a third-party complaint
in this circumstance serves to “reduce the possibility of inconsistent results in
separate actions, eliminate redundant litigation, and prevent the disappearance of
third parties.” See In re Texas Petroleum Inv. 2025 WL 1282686, at *4.
Moreover, 	the 	Court 	finds 	that 	Complainant 	has 	invoked 	admiralty
jurisdiction relative to its third-party complaint. Although the proposed pleading does
not cite to Rule 9(h) as a basis for jurisdiction, ES&H expressly cites this provision
elsewhere in the record to support the filing of the third-party complaint.4 Further,
the proposed pleading does cite to the general maritime law as a basis for subject
matter jurisdiction. Thus, ES&H has provided a sufficient election to proceed under
admiralty pursuant to Rule 9(h). 	See Smith v. Oceaneering Mobile Workforce LLC,
No. CV 23-469, 2025 WL 3190514, at *2 (E.D. La. Nov. 14, 2025) (“[W]hile the
‘preferred technique is to expressly invoke Rule 9(h),’ ‘a party need not make a specific
reference to Rule 9(h) in order to fall under our admiralty jurisdiction.’”) (quoting Teal
v. Eagle Fleet, Inc., 933 F.2d 341, 345 (5th Cir. 1991)).
4 R. Doc. 11-1 at 3.
Case 2:25-cv-01827-DJP-EJD Document 14 Filed 12/03/25 Page 2 of 3

Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for Leave (R. Doc. 11) is GRANTED and
that the proposed pleading be filed in the record.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 3 rd day of December, 2025.
EVA J. DOSSIER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 2:25-cv-01827-DJP-EJD Document 14 Filed 12/03/25 Page 3 of 3