Houston Fleeting Services LLC v. M/V YANGZE, her engines, tackle, apparel, bunkers, etc., in rem et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
HOUSTON FLEETING
SERVICES, LLC,
Plaintiff,
versus
M/V YANGZE, HER
ENGINES, TACKLE,
APPAREL, BUNKERS, ETC,
IN REM, et al,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NUMBER
4:24-cv-02705
JUDGE CHARLES ESKRIDGE
ORDER ADOPTING
REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This case arises from a collision between the M/V
Yangze 7 and the M/V Miss Peggy, which were two vessels
in the Houston Ship Channel on July 19, 2024. Plaintiff
Houston Fleeting Services, LLC, is the owner of the Miss
Peggy. Defendant Ladon Shipping, Pte Ltd, is the owner
and operator of the Yangze 7. See Dkt 1 at ¶¶5–10.
Houston Fleeting brought this action against the
Yangze 7 in rem, Ladon, Yangzijiang Shipping, Pte Ltd,
and Shanghai Run Yuan Shipping Management Co, for
damage to the Miss Peggy and seeking contribution and
indemnity regarding damages, injuries, and maintenance
costs. Id at ¶¶17−23.
The collision claimed the life of Aquarius Lowman, a
seaman aboard the Miss Peggy. Claimant Karribian Scott
is the personal representative of his estate. She asserts
claims against Houston Fleeting for Jones Act negligence
and unseaworthiness, as well as claims against Ladon
Shipping for negligence and gross negligence. Dkt 146 at
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
July 31, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:24-cv-02705 Document 202 Filed 07/30/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 5

2
¶¶15–27. Scott also brought claims as next friend of AL and
KL, who are children of Lowman and heirs of the estate,
but those claims were voluntarily dismissed. See Dkt 129.
Tracey Lowman is Lowman’s biological mother, who
also brought claims against Houston Fleeting and Ladon.
But these were also voluntarily dismissed. See Dkt 130.
Tierney Love also brought claims on behalf of her
minor daughter, ML, who is a daughter of the decedent.
She asserts claims for Jones Act negligence and
unseaworthiness against Houston Fleeting and for
negligence and gross negligence against Ladon Shipping.
Dkt 65 at ¶¶13–26.
Richard Ancar and Mark Doyle were employees of
Houston Fleeting aboard the Miss Peggy during the
collision. They also filed claims against Houston Fleeting
for Jones Act negligence, unseaworthiness, and
maintenance and cure. Dkts 57 at 10–13 & 61 at 10–12.
The matter was referred for disposition to Magistrate
Judge Dena Hanovice Palermo. Dkt 16.
Upon the recommendation of Judge Palermo, prior
order (i) dismissed all claims by Ancar and Doyle other
than for maintenance and cure against Houston Fleeting,
and (ii) dismissed the claims by Scott to the extent that she
seeks lost future earnings or loss of support. It was further
ordered that all persons other than Ancar, Tracey Lowman,
Doyle, Houston Fleeting, Scott, ML, and Ladon were
barred from asserting claims against Houston Fleeting and
Ladon relevant to the subject collision that could have been
asserted in this action. See Dkt 143 at 4.
Judge Palermo entered a bifurcation order, finding
that negligence, seaworthiness, privity, knowledge, and
apportionment of fault would be determined in one
limitation proceeding, and that damages would be
determined in a separate proceeding in a court of the
Claimants’ choosing, if necessary after conclusion of the
first proceeding. See Dkt 140 at 10.
Pending is a motion by Ladon for partial summary
judgment. Dkt 156. It seeks dismissal of all claims against
Case 4:24-cv-02705 Document 202 Filed 07/30/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 5

3
it for punitive and non-pecuniary damages. Id at 19. Judge
Palermo recommends that the motion be granted as to
claims for non-pecuniary and punitive damages. Dkt 170
at 15. But she further recommends that the claims by Scott
on behalf of Lowman’s estate for physical pain and mental
anguish, loss of past earnings, loss of support and services,
and burial and funeral expenses should survive dismissal,
along with the claims by Ancar and Doyle for mental
anguish damages. Ibid.
Also pending is a motion by Houston Fleeting for
summary judgment. Dkt 167. It seeks dismissal of the
consolidated action by Ladon for limitation of liability
related to the subject collision and requests that judgment
be entered against Ladon. Id at 21. Judge Palermo
recommends that the motion be denied based upon
disputes of material fact and determination that the
burden-shifting framework in maritime negligence actions
articulated in The Pennsylvania, 86 US 125, 136 (1873),
does not apply. Dkt 182 at 2, 22.
The district court reviews de novo those conclusions of
a magistrate judge to which a party has specifically
objected. See FRCP 72(b)(3) & 28 USC § 636(b)(1)(C); see
also United States v Wilson, 864 F2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir
1989, per curiam). The district court may accept any other
portions to which there’s no objection if satisfied that no
clear error appears on the face of the record. See Guillory v
PPG Industries Inc, 434 F3d 303, 308 (5th Cir 2005), citing
Douglass v United Services Automobile Association, 79 F3d
1415, 1430 (5th Cir 1996, en banc); see also FRCP 72(b)
advisory committee note (1983).
As to the first Report and Recommendation, Scott and
Love filed objections. Both assert that Judge Palermo erred
in finding that Ladon’s motion wasn’t moot in light of the
bifurcation order. They otherwise contend that Judge
Palermo erred in her analysis of applicable Fifth Circuit
and Supreme Court authority regarding the availability of
non-pecuniary damages in Jones Act or general maritime
suits against a non-employer. See Dkts 171 at 17–24 & 172
at 4–11. In response, Ladon maintains that suits by or on
Case 4:24-cv-02705 Document 202 Filed 07/30/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 5

4
behalf of a Jones Act seaman are limited to pecuniary
losses under the same authority cited in the objections. See
Dkt 173 at 3–9.
On de novo review and determination, the objections
lack merit. Judge Palermo correctly determined that
whether Claimants are entitled to punitive or non-
pecuniary damages isn’t a question of fact to be determined
by a jury in any subsequent proceeding concerning the
amount of damages to which Claimants are entitled. See
Dkt 170 at 6. Rather, it is a question of law quite
appropriate for resolution on summary judgment.
Judge Palermo also thoroughly examined Fifth Circuit
and Supreme Court precedent concerning the availability
of punitive and non-pecuniary damages in a suit under the
Jones Act and general maritime law. See Dkt 170 at 9–12.
In light of that authority, Judge Palermo correctly
concluded that “the Fifth Circuit has now made it clear that
under both the Jones Act and general maritime law, a
seaman’s damages against both employers and non-
employers are limited to pecuniary losses.” Id at 11–12,
quoting Wiltz v M-I LLC, 2018 WL 620041, *2 (ED La); see
also McBride v Estis Well Service, LLC, 768 F3d 382, 384
(5th Cir 2014) (holding that punitive damages may not be
recovered by seamen or their survivors in suit predicated
on Jones Act or general maritime law).
In light of this determination, Judge Palermo then
appropriately examined the categories of damages asserted
by Claimants and provided reasoned analysis supporting
conclusions as to which claims ought, and ought not,
survive dismissal. See id at 12–14. Nothing cited in the
objections demonstrates that such conclusions were made
in error. Indeed, the authorities cited in the Report and
Recommendation, both objections, and the response
support these conclusions.
The objections by Claimants Karribian Scott and
Tierney Love to the Report and Recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge are OVERRULED. Dkts 171 & 172.
Case 4:24-cv-02705 Document 202 Filed 07/30/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 5

5
As to the second Report and Recommendation, no party
filed objections.
No clear error otherwise appears upon review and
consideration of the Reports and Recommendations, the
record, and applicable law.
The Reports and Recommendations of the Magistrate
Judge are ADOPTED as the Memorandum and Order of this
Court. Dkts 170 & 182.
The motion by Ladon Shipping, Pte Ltd, for partial
summary judgment is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN
PART. Dkt 156.
The motion is GRANTED as to the claims against it for
non-pecuniary and punitive damages. Such claims are
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
The motion is DENIED as to (i) the claims by Claimant
Karribian Scott on behalf of the estate of Aquarius
Lowman for damages for his physical pain and mental
anguish, loss of past earnings, loss of support and services,
and burial and funeral expenses, and (ii) the claims by
Claimants Richard Ancar and Mark Doyle for their mental
anguish damages.
The motion by Houston Fleeting Services, LLC, for
summary judgment is DENIED. Dkt 167.
SO ORDERED.
Signed on July 30, 2026, at Houston, Texas.
___________________________
Honorable Charles Eskridge
United States District Judge
Case 4:24-cv-02705 Document 202 Filed 07/30/26 in TXSD Page 5 of 5