Marflet Marine, S. A. v. Everest Spirit Holding, LLC et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION
MARFLET MARINE, S.A., et al. , 	§
§
§	Plaintiffs,
V. 	§ 	CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:23-CV-00262
§
EVEREST SPIRIT HOLDING, LLC, et al. , 	§
§
Defendants. 	§
ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Jason B. Libby's Memorandum and Recommendation
("M&R"). (D.E. 111). The M&R recommends the Court:
1 / 4
• 	GRANT in part Buckeye's partial motion for summary judgment on liability
issues, (D .E. 69), and find Buckeye has no liability for the underlying surge
incident, and DISMISS all claims against Buckeye brought by the other parties to
this action;
• 	DENY in part Buckeye' s partial motion for summary judgment on liability is sues,
(D .E. 69), and decline to find at the summary judgment stage that the other party
Vessel Interests are liable jointly and severally for Buckeye' s provable damages as
there is a question of fact as to which issue should be presented at trial;
• 	GRANT Buckeye' s partial motion for summary judgment on VDC Interests'
damages, (D.E. 70);
• 	GRANT in part Everest Spirit's Interests' motion to join in and supplement
Buckeye' s motion on VDC Interests' damages, (D.E. 77), as to (1) VDC Interests'
claims for $134,831.83 tug charges, (2) $1 ,560,000 breach of contract damages as
they are both not ripe for adjudication, and (3) 164 ,058,08 in attorney fees and
$8 ,557.48 for expert witness fees in the lawsuit in Panama as the American Rule
forecloses such recovery in this action absent a statute, contract or bad faith
conduct;
• 	DENY in part Everest Spirit's Interests' motion to join in and supplement
Buckeye' s motion on VDC Interests' damages, (D. E. 77), as to VDC Interests'
$348,999.29 damages in economic off-hire costs;
• 	DENY VDC Interests' request to stay this case or amend the pleadings; and
• 	DENY Everest 	Spirit's Interests' 	motion 	for 	partial 	summary judgment on
Buckeye's loss of use and repair and replacement cost claims, (D. E. 79).
(D .E. 111 , p. 33). VDC Interests, (D .E. 115), and Everest Spirit's Interests, (D .E. 116),
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
March 17, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 2:23-cv-00262 Document 122 Filed 03/17/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 4

filed written objections. 1 VDC Interests filed a response to Everest Spirit's Interests' objections.
(D .E. 117). Buckeye Texas Hub LLC subsequently responded to both Everest Spirit's Interests'
and VDC Interests' objections. (D .E. 118). After review, the Court OVERRULES the parties'
objections, (D.E. 115); (D .E. 116), and ADOPTS the M&R, (D.E. 111).
I. Law
As to any portion for which no objection is filed, a district court reviews for clearly
erroneous factual findings and conclusions of law. United States v. Wilson , 864 F .2d 1219, 1221
(5th Cir. 	1989) (per curiam). Furthermore, having previously authorized district courts to
expeditiously adopt a magistrate 's recommendation, McGill v. Goff, 17 F.3d 729, 731-32 (5th Cir.
1994) (permitting a district court to adopt a magistrate' s recommendation one day after receiving
it and before objections were filed), the Fifth Circuit has also authorized district courts to adopt a
magistrate 's recommendation without providing detailed analysis. See Habets v. Waste Mgmt. ,
Inc., 363 F.3d 378,382 (5th Cir. 2004) (affirming a district court 's two-sentence order adopting a
magistrate 's recommendation for summary judgment).2
1 Eve re st Spirit also objects to Judge Libby's denial of its motion to exc lud e the opinion and testimony of
Captain Gregory Ty lawsky and a ll other experts relating to the City of Corpus Cristi Inner Harbor Speed
Ordinance. (D.E. 116 , p. 16-18). A magistrate judge possesses authority to issue rulings on non-dispositive
matters. See DA C Surgical Partners PA. v. United Healthcare Servs., Inc., No. 4:ll- CV-1355 , 2014 WL
585753 , at *l (S.D. Tex. Feb . 14 , 2014) (Harmon, J.). A magistrate jud ge's decision on a non-dispositive
matter must be affirmed unless "on the entire evidence (the Court) is left with a definite and firm conviction
that a mistake has been committed." United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948).
Upon review, the Court finds no mistake has been committed. Accordingly, the Court OVERRULES
Everest Spirit's objection to Judge Libby's ruling on its motion to exclude, (D.E. 78).
2 Specifica ll y, the Fifth Circuit stated that "because the magistrate here made only legal findings on a
summary judgment motion, the district court was permitted to issue an abbreviated order adopting [the
recommendation]." Habets, 363 F.3d at 382. Considering the M&R is at the summary judgment stage, the
Court finds that the principles animating the Fifth Circuit's decision apply with equal force here: (1) "the
record was available to the district court a full 20 days before the court issued its order"; (2) "the magistrate
here made no involved findings of fact .. ."; (3) "the magistrate here provided a thorough analysis to support
its recommendation"; and (4) "the district court had a complete record of the magistrate's proceedings."
See id. (citations omitted).
2 / 4
Case 2:23-cv-00262 Document 122 Filed 03/17/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 4

II. Analysis
The parties raise several objections to the M&R. (D.E. 115) ; (D .E. 116) . The Court
addresses those below.
VDC Interests object to the M&R's recommendation that the Court dismiss their tug
charges and FLOPEC breach of contract claims with prejudice. (D.E. 115 , p. 1). The M&R found
that these damages were "not ripe for adjudication." (D.E. 111 , p. 29). "The judicial tool for
handling claims that have yet to materialize is to dismiss such claims without prejudice due to lack
of ripeness." Gemini Ins. Co . v. Choice Exploration, Inc. , No. 3:18-CV-01393-X, 2020 WL
1064844, at *5 (N.D. Tex. Mar. 4, 2020) (Starr, J.) (citations omitted). Because these claims and
damages are not yet ripe for adjudication, the Court SUSTAINS VDC Interests' objection and
DISMISSES without prejudice VDC Interests' tug charges and FLOPEC breach of contract
claims. After conducting a de novo review of the portions of the M&R to which the parties' other
objections are directed, the Court finds no error with the Magistrate Judge's findings and
conclusions and OVERRULES the remaining objections. (D.E. 115) ; (D.E. 116).
III. Conclusion
Having reviewed the proposed findings and conclusions of the M&R, the record, the
applicable law, and having made a de novo review of the portions of the M&R to which the parties'
objections are directed, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(C), the Court OVERRULES the parties' obj ections,
(D. E. 115); (D .E. 116), and ADOPTS the M&R, (D.E. 111). Accordingly, the Court:
3 / 4
• 	GRANTS in part Buckeye's partial motion for summa ry judgment on liability
issues, (D.E. 69), and finds Buckeye has no liability for the underlying surge
incident, and DISMISSES all claims against Buckeye brought by the other parties
to this action;
• 	DENIES in part Buckeye' s partial motion for summary judgment on liability
issues, (D.E. 69), and declines to find at the summary judgment stage that the other
party Vessel Interests are liable jointly and severally for Buckeye's provable
damages as there is a question of fact as to which issue should be presented at trial;
Case 2:23-cv-00262 Document 122 Filed 03/17/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 4

• 	GRANTS Buckeye's partial motion for summary judgment on VDC Interests'
damages, (D.E. 70);
• 	GRANTS in part Everest Spirit 's Interests' motion to join in and supplement
Buckeye's motion on VDC Interests' damages, (D.E. 77), as to (1) VDC Interests'
claims for $134,831.83 tug charges, (2) $1 ,560,000 breach of contract damages as
they are both not ripe for adjudication, and (3) 164 ,058,08 in attorney fees and
$8 ,557.48 for expert witness fees in the lawsuit in Panama as the American Rule
forecloses such recovery in this action absent a statute, contract or bad faith
conduct;
• 	DENIES in part Everest Spirit's Interests' motion to join in and supplement
Buckeye' s motion on VDC Interests' damages, (D.E. 77), as to VDC Interests'
$348,999.29 damages in economic off-hire costs;
• 	DENIES VDC Interests' request to stay this case or amend the pleadings; and
• 	DENIES Everest Spirit's Interests' motion for partial summary judgment on
Buckeye's loss of use and repair and replacement cost claims, (D.E. 79).
SO ORDERED.
D 	YI 	S. MORALES
UNI 	D STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Signed: Corpus Christi, Texas
March /~ 	2026
4 / 4
Case 2:23-cv-00262 Document 122 Filed 03/17/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 4