ORDER AND REASONS

SUSIE MORGAN, District Judge.

Before the Court are two motions to dismiss filed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.1 Both motions were filed by "the K&K Defendants."2 The first motion to dismiss is with respect to Plaintiff Calvin Howard's claims for punitive damages against the K&K Defendants,3 and the second motion to dismiss is with respect to Plaintiff Raymond Howard's claims for punitive damages against the K&K Defendants.4 Both Plaintiffs have filed oppositions to the respective motions.5 The K&K Defendants then filed a reply memorandum in further support of the motions to dismiss.6

The Court has considered the briefs, the record, and the applicable law, and now issues its ruling. For the reasons stated herein, the motions to dismiss are GRANTED.

BACKGROUND

This is a maritime personal injury case. It is undisputed that, on May 16, 2013, Plaintiffs Raymond Howard ("Raymond") and Calvin Howard ("Calvin") were injured during a personnel-basket transfer from the M/V Contender to the deck of the L/B Janie.7 At the time of the accident, both Raymond and Calvin were employed by Offshore Liftboats, LLC, ("OLB"), the owner and/or operator of the L/B Janie.8 The M/V Contender was owned and/or operated by K&K Offshore, LLC.9 As a result of the accident, both Raymond and Calvin filed suit against OLB—their Jones Act employer—alleging, inter alia, negligence under the Jones Act and seeking punitive damages. Raymond and Calvin also sued K&K Offshore, a non-employer third party, under the General Maritime Law for negligence and unseaworthiness, as well as for punitive damages.

On October 30, 2015, the K&K Defendants filed the present motions to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.10 The motions seek the dismissal of Raymond Howard's and Calvin Howard's punitive damages claims against the K&K Defendants. It is these motions that are presently before the Court.

LEGAL STANDARD

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) provides for the dismissal of a claim if the claimant fails to set forth factual allegations in support of the claim that would entitle the claimant to relief.11 Those "`[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.'"12 "To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to `state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'"13 "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged."14 In considering a motion to dismiss, the Court must accept all wellpleaded facts as true and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party.15 The Court need not, however, accept as true legal conclusions couched as factual allegations.16 "[O]nly a complaint that states a plausible claim for relief survives a motion to dismiss."17

DISCUSSION

The K&K Defendants contend that controlling Fifth Circuit precedent, namely McBride v. Estis Well Services, LLC,18 "has expressly precluded awards for punitive damages related to claims arising under the Jones Act and General Maritime Law."19 In McBride, the Fifth Circuit cited to and relied on the Supreme Court's 1990 decision in Miles v. Apex Marine Corp., which held that "the Jones Act limits a seaman's recovery to pecuniary losses where liability is predicated on the Jones Act or unseaworthiness. Because punitive damages are non-pecuniary losses, punitive damages may not be recovered."20

In response, Raymond and Calvin rely heavily on a recent decision of this district, Collins v. A.B.C. Marine Towing, L.L.C,21 which concluded that punitive damages are available under General Maritime Law against a non-employer third party.22 In Collins, the court declined to follow the Fifth Circuit's decision in Scarborough v. Clemco Industries, which held, in line with Miles and McBride, that a seaman may not recover punitive damages against either his employer or a non-employer.23 Collins noted that, since the Scarborough decision in 2004, the Supreme Court has held—in Atlantic Sounding Co. v. Townsend—that a seaman can recover punitive damages for an employer's arbitrary withholding of maintenance and cure.24 Thus, the Collins court concluded that the Supreme Court effectively "call[ed] into question the legal reasoning and conclusions espoused in Scarborough" and that, consequently, Scarborough had been implicitly overruled.25 As a result, the Collins court found, in the context of a seaman's claims against a non-employer third party where the Jones Act is not implicated, the seaman can recover punitive damages.26

However, as even Collins recognizes, the Townsend decision is specific to the maintenance-and-cure context and does not address whether punitive damages are available for claims of unseaworthiness.27 In fact, the Townsend Court took pains to distinguish maintenance and cure, for which it concluded punitive damages are available, from a seaman's remedies for negligence and unseaworthiness, for which punitive damages are generally not available under Miles, Scarborough, and McBride.28 As other courts in this district have recognized, although Townsend may give hope to seamen wishing to obtain punitive damages for unseaworthiness claims against their employers and non-employers, "this Court cannot assume the Fifth Circuit has changed its position on personal injury claims falling outside the scope of Townsend."29 Further, the Court notes that the Fifth Circuit's decision in Scarborough, which held that a seaman may not recover punitive damages against either his employer or a non-employer, is binding on this Court and has never been overruled. As a result, the Court finds that the punitive damages claims of Plaintiffs Raymond Howard and Calvin Howard against K&K Offshore are not plausible claims for relief in light of binding Fifth Circuit precedent.

CONCLUSION

IT IS ORDERED that the motions to dismiss filed by the K&K Defendants, with respect to the punitive damages claims of Plaintiffs Raymond Howard and Calvin Howard,30 are hereby GRANTED.