Mac Metals Sales, Inc. v. Ingram Barge Co., LLC et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
MAC METAL SALES, INC. 	CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS 	NO. 25-422
INGRAM BARGE CO., LLC. ET AL. 	SECTION “R” (4)
ORDER AND REASONS
Defendant Mid-Ship Logistics, LLC’s (“Mid-Ship”) moves to dismiss
the claim of plaintiff Mac Metal Sales, Inc. (“Mac Metal”) for failure to state
a claim upon which relief can be granted. 1 Mac Metal opposes this motion. 2
For the following reasons, the Court denies defendant’s motion.
I. 	BACKGROUND
Mac Metal’s amended complaint alleges that in early 2024, Mac Metal
arranged for the shipment of more than 5,500 metric tons of steel coils from
Busan, South Korea to New Orleans, Louisiana. 3 It avers that a pre-shipment
survey showed that the cargo was in generally good condition when loaded
onto the M/V Lowlands Fidelity in South Korea. 4
1 	R. Doc. 53.
2 	R. Doc. 60.
3 	R. Doc. 47 at 3.
4 	Id.
Case 2:25-cv-00422-SSV-KWR Document 76 Filed 01/07/26 Page 1 of 11

2
The M/V Lowlands Fidelity allegedly docked in New Orleans on
February 29, 2024. 5 	The amended complaint alleges that Mid-Ship, acting
as 	Mac 	Metal’s 	agent 	and 	“logistics 	representative,” 	facilitated 	and
coordinated moving the coils from the M/V Lowlands Fidelity to Ingram
Barge Co. (“Ingram”) barges and ensured those barges were suitable for
transporting the cargo.6 According to the complaint, Marine Inspection, LLC
(“Marine Inspection”) surveyors arrived to witness the movement of the coils
from the M/V Lowlands Fidelity to the Ingram barges, but the vessel agents
denied the inspectors access. 7 A tugboat allegedly moved the Ingram barges
to Harahan, Louisiana. 8
The complaint alleges that Marine Inspection inspectors accessed the
Ingram barges in Harahan on March 4, 2024 and observed water on one of
the four barges, T-13995. 9 	Upon the Ingram barges’ arrival in Indiana a
month later, allegedly one-quarter of the coils on the T-13995 had a visible
waterline, one-quarter had visible mold, and the remaining half had an
indeterminate 	waterline. 10 	Mac 	Metal 	alleges 	that 	a 	damages 	survey
5 	Id.
6 	Id. at 3-4.
7 	Id. at 4.
8 	Id.
9 	Id. at 6.
10 	Id.
Case 2:25-cv-00422-SSV-KWR Document 76 Filed 01/07/26 Page 2 of 11

3
conducted 	for 	Travelers’, 	Mac 	Metal’s 	insurer, 	concluded 	that 	water
damaged 	the 	coils 	aboard 	T-13995 	during 	or 	after 	the 	New 	Orleans
discharge.11
Mac Metal filed a complaint in admiralty in February 2025.12 It alleged
causes of action against seven defendants. Mac Metal has since voluntarily
dismissed two of the seven defendants. The Court dismissed a third. 13 One
of the remaining defendants is Mid-Ship. 14 	Mac Metal sued Mid-Ship for
negligence. Mid-Ship moved to dismiss the claim under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted. 15 	The Court granted the motion to dismiss with leave to amend. 16
Mac Metal then filed an amended complaint. 17 	Mid-Ship now moves to
dismiss the amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 18
The Court considers the motion below.
11 	Id. at 6-7.
12 	R. Doc. 1.
13 	R. Doc. 41.
14 	R. Docs. 28, 33.
15 	R. Doc. 10.
16 	R. Doc. 44.
17 	R. Doc. 47.
18 	R. Doc. 53.
Case 2:25-cv-00422-SSV-KWR Document 76 Filed 01/07/26 Page 3 of 11

4
II. 	LEGAL STANDARD
To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a plaintiff must plead
enough facts to “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl.
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). 	A claim is facially plausible
“when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the
reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). The Court must accept all well-
pleaded facts as true and must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the
plaintiff. 	Lormand v. US Unwired, Inc., 565 F.3d 228, 239, 244 (5th Cir.
2009). But the Court is not bound to accept as true legal conclusions couched
as factual allegations. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
A legally sufficient complaint must establish more than a “sheer
possibility” that the party’s claim is true. See id. It need not contain “detailed
factual allegations,” but it must go beyond “‘labels and conclusions’ or ‘a
formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action.’” 	See id. 	(quoting
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). In other words, “[t]he complaint (1) on its face
(2) must contain enough factual matter (taken as true) (3) to raise a
reasonable hope or expectation (4) that discovery will reveal relevant
evidence of each element of a claim.” 	Lormand, 565 F.3d at 257 (cleaned
up). The claim must be dismissed if there are insufficient factual allegations
Case 2:25-cv-00422-SSV-KWR Document 76 Filed 01/07/26 Page 4 of 11

5
“to raise a right to relief above the speculative level,” Twombly, 550 U.S. at
555, or if it is apparent from the face of the complaint that there is an
insuperable bar to relief, see Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 215 (2007).
On a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the Court must limit its review to the
pleadings and attachments. Brand Coupon Network, LLC v. Catalina Mktg.
Corp., 748 F.3d 631, 635 (5th Cir. 2014). 	The Court may also consider
documents attached to a motion to dismiss or an opposition to that motion
when the documents are referred to in the pleadings and are central to a
plaintiff’s claims. Id.
III. 	DISCUSSION
A. Mac Metal Plausibly Alleged Negligence
Mac Metal alleges that it entered into an agency agreement with Mid-
Ship for the “movement of steel coils” that provided for the “coordination and
management of shipments on behalf of” Mac Metal. 19 Mac Metal alleges that,
under this agreement, Mid-Ship entered into Dry Cargo Transportation
Agreement contract with Ingram for the shipment of cargo on Mac Metal’s
behalf. Under that contract, Mid-Ship was required to perform a pre-loading
inspection of the Ingram barges. 	Mac Metal alleges that as its agent, Mid-
Ship was “responsible for inspecting barges prior to loading and provid[ing]
19 	R. Doc. 47 at 3.
Case 2:25-cv-00422-SSV-KWR Document 76 Filed 01/07/26 Page 5 of 11

6
notice if those barges [were] unsuitable.”20 Mac Metal alleges that Mid-Ship
negligently failed to do so and that, as a result, the steel coils rusted aboard
the barges.
Under Twombly, a plaintiff must cross “the line from conceivable to
plausible” for each element of the claim. 	550 U.S. at 570. 	A claim for
negligence in maritime law requires: (1) a duty owed to plaintiff, (2) a breach
of that duty, (3) injury, and (4) causation. 	See In re Great Lakes Dredge &
Dock Co. LLC, 624 F.3d 201, 211 (5th Cir. 2010).
Here, Mac Metal plausibly pleads a claim for negligence in maritime
law. To establish a maritime negligence claim, plaintiff must first plausibly
allege facts that establish a relationship between Mid-Ship and Mac Metal
that gives rise to a duty owed to Mac Metal. As to duty, Mac Metal’s factual
contention against Mid-Ship is that Mid-Ship was its agent.
Federal maritime law incorporates the basic principles of agency law.
MTO Maritime Transport Overseas, Inc. v. McLendon Forwarding Co., 837
F.2d 215, 218 (5th Cir. 1988). 	An agency relationship is never presumed.
Karl Rove & Co. v. Thornburgh, 39 F.3d 1273, 1296 (5th Cir. 1994). 	The
party seeking to rely upon the agency relationship has the burden of proving
the existence of such a relationship. Id. At the motion to dismiss stage, that
20 	R. Doc. 47, at 4.
Case 2:25-cv-00422-SSV-KWR Document 76 Filed 01/07/26 Page 6 of 11

7
burden is to plausibly plead the existence of an agency relationship. 	The
“essential element of an agency relationship is the right of control.” 	In re
Carolin Paxson Advertising, Inc., 938 F.2d 595, 598 (5th Cir. 1991). 	The
alleged principal must “have the right to control both the means and the
details of the process by which the alleged agent is to accomplish [the] task.”
Id.
In its amended complaint, Mac Metal plausibly alleges an agency
relationship. Mac Metal alleges that Mid-Ship “agreed to act as an agent” for
Mac Metal “for the movement of steel coils.” 21 The alleged agreement stated
that Mid-Ship would provide “coordination and management of shipments
on behalf” of Mac Metal and acted with Mac Metal’s authority, plausibly
suggesting control, despite Mid-Ship’s contention otherwise. 22
Further, Mac Metal alleges that Mid-Ship entered into a Dry Cargo
Transportation Agreement with Ingram on Mac Metal’s behalf and signed
the agreement as such. This agreement plausibly shows Mid-Ship’s apparent
authority to act on Mac Metal’s behalf.23 	This also plausibly demonstrates
that Mid-Ship was not the “intermediary” it claims to be, but rather Mac
Metal’s representative as the alleged agency contract states. 	The alleged
21 	R. Doc. 47, at 3.
22 	Id. at 3-4.
23 	Id. at 4.
Case 2:25-cv-00422-SSV-KWR Document 76 Filed 01/07/26 Page 7 of 11

8
agency agreement and Mid-Ship’s actions plausibly show that Mid-Ship was
acting as Mac Metal’s agent.
Mid-Ship argues that Mac Metal has not alleged an agency relationship
because the alleged agency agreement refers to Mid-Ship as a “logistics
representative” instead of agent. 24 It is the scope of the relationship, and not
the title, that determines whether Mid-Ship was Mac Metal’s agent. 	See
Stripling v. Jordan Products Co., LLC, 234 F.3d 863, 870 (5th Cir. 2000)
(noting that the “manner in which the parties designate the relationship is
not controlling”) (citations omitted). 	Mac Metal has plausibly alleged that
Mid-Ship was its agent and therefore owed it a duty.
Mac Metal also plausibly alleges the remaining elements of a maritime
negligence claim. 	Mac Metal plausibly alleges that Mid-Ship breached its
duty, including by failing to inspect the Ingram barges prior to loading the
steel coils and failing to notify Mac Metal that the barges were allegedly
unsuitable. 25 	Mac Metal plausibly alleges injury because of the damage to
the coils. Mac Metal also plausibly alleges causation, on the theory that had
Mid-Ship not breached its agency duties, the steel coils would not have been
damaged.
24 	R. Doc. 53-1, at 5.
25 	Id. at 4.
Case 2:25-cv-00422-SSV-KWR Document 76 Filed 01/07/26 Page 8 of 11

9
B. Mac Metal Can Bring Claim in Negligence
Mid-Ship argues that Mac Metal cannot bring a negligence action
against Mid-Ship under two theories. 	First, Mid-Ship argues that Mac
Metal’s claim fails because Mac Metal cannot show that Mid-Ship owed Mac
Metal a duty under the contract between Mid-Ship and Ingram, a third party.
This argument incorrectly characterizes Mac Metal’s claim. First, Mac Metal
adequately 	alleges 	that 	Mid-Ship 	breached 	a 	duty 	to 	Mac 	Metal 	by
negligently performing its agency duties in breaching the contract with
Ingram, which required Mid-Ship to conduct a pre-loading inspection of the
barges. Further, Mac Metal also alleges that Mid-Ship failed to perform its
agency duties prudently by failing to provide updates to Mac Metal on the
arrival conditions of the barges and failing to perform problem-solving as
agreed in the agency agreement.
The case Mid-Ship cites to support its argument is inapposite. 	In
Atlantic v. Gulf Stevedores, Inc. v. Revelle Shipping Agency, Inc., the Fifth
Circuit held that a maritime agent could not be held liable to a third party for
claims arising out of contracts the agent executed on behalf of a disclosed
principal. 750 F.2d 457, 459 (5th Cir. 1985). This is distinct from the issue
here, which involves a principal holding its agent liable for negligent
performance of agency duties.
Case 2:25-cv-00422-SSV-KWR Document 76 Filed 01/07/26 Page 9 of 11

10
Second, Mid-Ship asserts that Mac Metal cannot bring a breach of
contract claim as a tort action. The Fifth Circuit has clarified that a plaintiff
can choose to sue in contract or in tort when alleging that a defendant
negligently performed their contractual duties. 	Franklin v. Regions Bank,
976 F.3d 443, 448 (5th Cir. 2020). 	Mac Metal can allege that Mid-Ship’s
breach of the agency agreement is an action in tort, as Mac Metal has done.
Id.
Here, too, the case Mid-Ship cites does not support Mid-Ship’s
argument. In Strahan v. Sabine Retirement & Rehabilitation Center, Inc.,
the Louisiana Supreme Court noted that a plaintiff could assert causes of
actions in both tort and contract. 981 So. 2d 287, 292 (2008). In Strahan,
the Court found that the nature of the duty breached did not arise solely in
contract, but also in tort. 	Id. 	It announced no rule that a negligence tort
claim “must arise from a duty other than one imposed by the contract” as
Mid-Ship contends. 26 	Instead, as Mid-Ship itself notes later in its brief, a
claim that contractual duties were performed negligently—including the
alleged agency contract here—“may warrant a negligence claim under a
general duty of care.” 27
26 	R. Doc. 53-1, at 11.
27 	Id.
Case 2:25-cv-00422-SSV-KWR Document 76 Filed 01/07/26 Page 10 of 11

11
C. Affirmative Defense
Finally, Mid-Ship argues that the agency contract provides that cargo
handling damage claims should be made against the respective vendors and
service providers, 	not Mid-Ship. 	Pretermitting other issues with this
argument, that Mac Metal’s claim may be subject to a defense does not show
that Mac Metal failed to plausibly plead negligence.
*****
Mac 	Metal 	has 	plausibly 	pled 	sufficient 	allegations 	to 	create 	a
“reasonable 	hope 	or 	expectation . . . that 	discovery 	will 	reveal 	relevant
evidence of each element of a claim.” 	Lormand, 565 F.3d at 257 (cleaned
up). The Court thus denies Mid-Ship’s motion to dismiss for failure to state
a claim upon which relief can be granted.
IV. 	CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES defendant’s motion to
dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
New Orleans, Louisiana, this _____ day of January, 2026.
_____________________
SARAH S. VANCE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
7th
Case 2:25-cv-00422-SSV-KWR Document 76 Filed 01/07/26 Page 11 of 11