Daigle v. DRC Emergency Services, LLC et al
Filing
55
ORDER AND REASONS ON MOTIONS: ORDERED that defendants' motions are GRANTED IN PART insofar as they seek a stay of this case and DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE insofar as they seek dismissal. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case for all administrative and statistical purposes temporarily as set forth herein. FURTHER ORDERED that all dates and deadlines set in the court's previous scheduling order, Record Doc. No. 38, specifically, the July 31, 2012, Rule 26(f) conference a nd report requirement and the August 15, 2012, status conference are CANCELLED. FURTHER ORDERED that defendants' motions are dismissed without prejudice insofar as they seek dismissal of the complaint under rule 12(b)(6). The motions to dismiss may be reurged, after the stay is lifted. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Wilkinson, Jr on 7/12/12.(tbl)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
BOYD DAIGLE ET AL.
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NO. 11-2499
DRC EMERGENCY
SERVICES, LLC ET AL.
MAGISTRATE JUDGE
JOSEPH C. WILKINSON, JR.
ORDER AND REASONS ON MOTIONS
This is a putative class action in which plaintiffs allege race discrimination against
defendants DRC Emergency Services, LLC and DRC Marine, LLC (collectively
“DRC”); BP Exploration and Production, Inc. and BP America Production Company
(collectively “BP”); Lawson Environmental Services, LLC (“Lawson”); and “Unnamed
Contractors.” Record Doc. No. 42. Specifically, the second amended complaint alleges
that “[a]ll Plaintiffs are boat captains/owners and/or crew members who are domiciled
in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Texas, and other states and who
participated, applied to participate, and/or attempted to participate in the Vessels of
Opportunity Program (the ‘VOO Program’), following the April 20, 2010, explosion of
the Deepwater Horizon and subsequent oil spill. Plaintiffs are boat captains/owners
and/or crew members who were purposefully prevented from making and enforcing VOO
Program contracts because of their race, color, and/or ethnicity [white, non-Native
American and/or non-Vietnamese American] in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981.” Id. at
p. 2.
This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge for all proceedings
and entry of judgment in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) upon written consent of all
parties. Record Doc. No. 39.
Defendants BP, Lawson and DRC have moved to stay this case and/or to dismiss
plaintiffs’ claims pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Record Doc. Nos. 20, 34, 45, 46
and 47. The stay is sought on grounds that plaintiff’s claims in this suit are subject to the
much-negotiated and preliminarily approved Economic Damages Settlement Agreement
in MDL No. 2179, to which this case is related. Plaintiffs filed a timely opposition
memorandum. Record Doc. No. 48. Defendants received leave to file reply memoranda.
Record Doc. Nos. 49 - 54.
Significantly, by order signed yesterday, Judge Barbier “temporarily stayed” a
similar kind of case brought on behalf of Vietnamese American and Native American
plaintiffs, based upon a motion to stay urging grounds substantially similar to those
advanced before me, “pending implementation of the Economic Damages Settlement
Agreement” in MDL No. 2179, to which the member case pending before me is related.
MDL No. 2179, Record Doc. No. 6888.
2
Having considered the record (including the preliminarily approved Economic
Damages Settlement Agreement in the pending MDL case), the complaint as twice
amended by plaintiffs, the written submissions of the parties, and the applicable law, IT
IS ORDERED that defendants’ motions are GRANTED IN PART insofar as they seek
a stay of this case and DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE insofar as they seek
dismissal, as follows.
Federal district courts have “general discretionary power . . . to stay proceedings
in the interest of justice and in control of their dockets.” Wedgeworth v. Fibreboard
Corp., 706 F.2d 541, 545 (5th Cir. 1983); accord In re M.J. Beebe, 56 F.3d 1384, 1995
WL 337666, at *2 (5th Cir. 1995). This court’s power to stay a case is “broad” but “not
unbounded.” Wedgeworth, 706 F.2d at 545. “Proper use of this [stay] authority ‘calls
for the exercise of judgment, which must weigh competing interests and maintain an even
balance.’” Id. (quoting Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248 (1936)). Relevant factors
for the court to consider in determining whether a discretionary stay should be entered
include hardship or inequity upon the stay applicant in being required to go forward,
whether the stay “will work damage to someone else,” the time reasonably expected for
resolution of the other matter prompting the stay request, and whether the anticipated
stay period will be immoderate or of indefinite duration.” Id.
3
Weighing these factors in this case weighs heavily in favor of granting the stay.
The stay applicants – principally BP – have worked diligently in the pending MDL to
settle economic damages claims like those asserted in this case. It appears that the
benefits available from the pending Economic Damages Settlement Agreement –
principally speedy resolution and payment of their claims on a determinable basis, as
opposed to the uncertain and lengthy litigation process that awaits them in the case
pending before me – are available to these plaintiffs. It would be inequitable to require
defendants to proceed with this putative class action while the real possibility of
settlement of these claims through the MDL proceedings exists. Plaintiffs will not be
substantially damaged or subjected to hardship by a temporary stay. On the contrary, it
may well be in their best interests to settle the claims they assert in this case through the
MDL settlement process, rather than expose themselves to the risks, expense and delays
presented by their claims in this individual case. The stay will not be indefinite or
immoderate. The preliminarily approved Economic Damages Settlement Agreement in
the MDL proceedings has a process for resolution and payment of these claims, subject
to a timetable that includes a deadline in the next few months for claimants like these
plaintiffs to determine whether to accept a settlement. As reflected in Judge Barbier’s
separate orders both in the Duong case and the MDL proceeding, implementation of the
4
settlement process, including actual payment of claims and policing of its deadlines, is
well under way.
For all of the foregoing reasons, defendants’ motions to stay are granted. The
Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case for all administrative and statistical
purposes temporarily, reserving the parties’ right to move to lift the stay and have the
case restored to the court’s active trial calendar upon completion of the proceedings
referenced in Judge Barbier’s related order in Duong concerning implementation of the
Economic Damages Settlement Agreement in MDL No. 2179.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all dates and deadlines set in the court’s
previous scheduling order, Record Doc. No. 38, specifically, the July 31, 2012, Rule
26(f) conference and report requirement and the August 15, 2012, status conference are
CANCELLED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants’ motions are dismissed without
prejudice insofar as they seek dismissal of the complaint under rule 12(b)(6). The
motions to dismiss may be reurged, after the stay is lifted.
12th
New Orleans, Louisiana, this ___________ day of July, 2012.
JOSEPH C. WILKINSON, JR.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
5
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?