Seals et al v. GulfMark Americas, Inc. et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
MYSTI SEALS ET AL. 	CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS 	NO: 25-1447
GULFMARK AMERICAS INC. ET AL. 	SECTION “H”
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
(Doc. 18). For the following reasons, the Motion is DENIED.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Mysti Seals brings this action as representative of her deceased
husband Glenn Seals, who was electrocuted on board the M/V Polaris while
working 	as 	a 	Jones 	Act 	seaman 	for 	Defendant 	Tidewater 	Marine, 	LLC
(“Tidewater”). The M/V Polaris was owned by Defendant GulfMark Americas,
Inc. Plaintiff brings claims for Jones Act negligence and unseaworthiness.
In the instant motion, Plaintiff moves for Judgment on the Pleadings
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) as to one of Defendant Tidewater’s
affirmative defenses. Specifically, in their answer Defendants pleaded that
Plaintiff’s recovery is limited to pecuniary losses authorized by the Death on
the High Seas Act (“DOHSA”). Plaintiff argues that this defense is unavailable
Case 2:25-cv-01447-JTM-DPC Document 27 Filed 11/14/25 Page 1 of 5

2
as a matter of law to Tidewater as a Jones Act employer and should be
dismissed.
LAW AND ANALYSIS
The Court finds at the outset that Plaintiff’s Motion is procedurally
improper. “[A] plaintiff desiring early resolution of an affirmative defense may
seek to strike it under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f).”1 “A motion to
strike under Rule 12(f) is the most appropriate mechanism to contest the
sufficiency of affirmative defenses, not a motion for judgment on the pleadings
under Rule 12(c).”2 “If a plaintiff seeks to dispute the legal sufficiency of fewer
than all of the defenses raised in the defendant’s pleading, he should proceed
under Rule 12(f) rather than under Rule 12(c) because the latter leads to the
entry of a judgment.”3 Plaintiff’s request that this Court find that Defendant
Tidewater cannot succeed on its pecuniary damages affirmative defense under
DOHSA as a matter of law would not result in judgment. Rather, it would only
serve to preclude the affirmative defense. Accordingly, the Court construes the
motion for judgment on the pleadings as a motion to strike under Rule 12(f).4
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) allows the Court to, among other
things, strike “from any pleading any insufficient defense.” “The Court may
1 C&C Inv. Props., L.L.C. v. Trustmark Nat’l Bank, 838 F.3d 655, 660–61 (5th Cir.
2016). 2 In re Waggoner Cattle, LLC, No. 18-20126-RLJ-11, 2022 WL 5264707, at *1 (Bankr.
N.D. Tex. Apr. 28, 2022); Franks v. Tyhan, Inc., No. CV H-15-191, 2016 WL 1531752, at *2
(S.D. Tex. Apr. 15, 2016).
3 5C Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1369
(3d ed. 2004).
4 The Court notes that Plaintiff’s Motion appears to be untimely under Rule 12(f),
which requires a motion to strike be filed within 21 days of being served with the relevant
pleading. However, the Court finds that the Motion also fails on its merits as detailed herein.
Case 2:25-cv-01447-JTM-DPC Document 27 Filed 11/14/25 Page 2 of 5

3
strike a defense as insufficient if the defense is insufficient as a matter of law
or if the pleading fails to give fair notice of the defense raised.”5 Motions to
strike are generally disfavored and “should be used sparingly by the courts,”
as it is “a drastic remedy to be resorted to only when required for the purposes
of justice [and] . . . when the pleading to be stricken has no possible relation to
the 	controversy.”6 	Therefore, 	“even 	when 	technically 	appropriate 	and
well-founded,” a motion to strike should not be granted unless the moving
party demonstrates prejudice.7
In her motion, Plaintiff moves for dismissal of the following affirmative
defense included in the answer filed on behalf of both Defendants:
The incident alleged in Plaintiff’s Complaint occurred more than
one marine league from shore, and accordingly Plaintiff’s recovery
for damages and losses attributable to the incident, if any, is
limited to pecuniary losses authorized by the Death on the High
Seas Act, 46 U.S.C. § 30301.
Plaintiff argues that the affirmative defense that DOHSA limits Plaintiff’s
recovery to pecuniary losses is not available to Tidewater as the decedent’s
Jones Act employer and therefore is insufficient as a matter of law. Plaintiff
5 CarrollClean LLC v. ACE Am. Ins. Co., No. 3:21-CV-01359-N, 2022 WL 598243, at
*2 (N.D. Tex. Feb. 28, 2022). “Although motions to strike a defense are generally disfavored,
a Rule 12(f) motion to dismiss a defense is proper when the defense is insufficient as a matter
of law.” Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Sales, Inc. v. Avondale Shipyards, Inc., 677 F.2d 1045,
1057 (5th Cir. 1982). Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(c), defendants must plead an
affirmative defense with “enough specificity or factual particularity to give the plaintiff ‘fair
notice’ of the defense that is being advanced.” Woodfield v. Bowman, 193 F.3d 354, 362 (5th
Cir. 1999).
6 Augustus v. Bd. of Pub. Instruction, 306 F.2d 862, 868 (5th Cir. 1962).
7 Abene v. Jaybar, LLC, 802 F. Supp. 2d 716, 723 (E.D. La. 2011) (internal quotation
marks omitted) (citing 5C Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and
Procedure § 1382 (3d ed. 2004); Boyd’s Bit Serv., Inc. v. Specialty Rental Tool & Supply, Inc.,
332 F. Supp. 2d 938, 944 (W.D. La. 2004)).
Case 2:25-cv-01447-JTM-DPC Document 27 Filed 11/14/25 Page 3 of 5

4
contends that the Jones Act provides decedent’s exclusive remedy against his
employer, Tidewater. Plaintiff admits, however, that “both the Jones Act, 46
U.S.C. § 30104 et seq., and the Death on the High Seas Act, 46 U.S.C. § 30301
et. seq. limit a claimant to ‘pecuniary damages.’” That said, Plaintiff argues
that she is entitled to recover survival damages for her husband’s pain and
suffering under the Jones Act whereas DOHSA would preclude this recovery
in an unseaworthiness action against a non-employer vessel owner.
These arguments aside, Plaintiff crucially acknowledges that DOHSA
precludes 	survival 	damages 	“in 	an 	unseaworthiness 	action 	against 	the
non-employer vessel owner, GulfMark Americas, Inc., as the Jones Act is not
implicated.”8 Accordingly, the affirmative defense at issue is applicable to at
least one of the Defendants that asserted it in the Defendants’ joint answer.
Striking the defense from the answer would therefore be improper. Further,
Plaintiff has not offered any argument as to how she is prejudiced by the
inclusion of the affirmative defense. “Courts that have granted motions to
strike based on prejudice look to factors like delay, whether the challenged
statements will unnecessarily prolong or prevent discovery, or increase the
parties’ expenses.”9 Plaintiff has not made that showing here.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Motion is DENIED.
8 Doc. 18.
9 Hi-Tech Elec., Inc. of Delaware v. T&B Constr. & Elec. Servs., Inc., No. CV 15-3034,
2017 WL 660645, at *2 (E.D. La. Feb. 15, 2017).
Case 2:25-cv-01447-JTM-DPC Document 27 Filed 11/14/25 Page 4 of 5

5
New Orleans, Louisiana this 14th day of November, 2025.
____________________________________
JANE TRICHE MILAZZO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 2:25-cv-01447-JTM-DPC Document 27 Filed 11/14/25 Page 5 of 5