LeBlanc v. Panther Helicopters, Inc. et al

Filing 686

ORDER AND REASONS: ORDERED that the Court's 526 ORDER of December 5, 2017 dismissing all of the claims asserted by Panther Helicopters, Inc., as Plaintiff in Civil Action No. 14-2326 is CLARIFIED to make absolutely certain that Panther's claims for defense and indemnity against Energy XXI were included in the dismissal. FURTHER ORDERED that Energy XXIs Rule 12(b)(6) 550 Motion to Dismiss is DENIED AS MOOT. Signed by Judge Carl Barbier on 8/14/2018. (Reference: 14-2326)(clc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
MARVIN PETER LEBLANC,
JR.

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO: 14-1617
C/W 14-1772
14-1791
14-1875
14-2326
18-2296
REF: 14-2326

PANTHER HELICOPTERS,
INC. ET AL.

SECTION: “J”(4)

ORDER & REASONS
Before the Court is Energy XXI GOM, L.L.C.’s (“Energy XXI”) Rule 12(b)(6)
Motion to Dismiss (Rec. Doc. 550), Panther Helicopters, Inc.’s (“Panther”) opposition
(Rec. Doc. 576), and Energy XXI’s reply (Rec. Doc. 595). The Court assumes the
reader’s familiarity with these consolidated cases and Energy XXI’s Chapter 11
bankruptcy proceeding.
Panther’s Third Supplemental and Amending Complaint asserted contractual
defense and indemnity claims against Energy XXI. (Rec. Doc. 248.)1 Energy XXI
argues these claims should be dismissed because Panther failed to timely assert them
in its Proof of Claim filed in Energy XXI’s bankruptcy proceeding and are therefore

1

Panther also asserted tort claims for property damage, etc., against Energy XXI (see No. 14-2326,
Rec. Doc. 1), but those claims were dismissed on summary judgment (Rec. Doc. 485) and/or
voluntarily dismissed by Panther (Rec. Doc. 524, 526).

barred under the confirmed plan of reorganization.2 Panther’s opposition asserts only
that it previously voluntarily dismissed these claims, therefore, Energy XXI’s motion
improperly seeks an advisory opinion. Energy XXI replies that when Panther moved
to voluntarily dismiss its claims, it explicitly reserved “all claims for defense and
indemnity with respect to [Energy XXI],” therefore Energy XXI’s motion seeks
resolution of an actual controversy.
Panther’s motion to voluntarily dismiss did purport to reserve its defense and
indemnity claims against Energy XXI. (See Rec. Doc. 524.) However, the Court’s
order of December 5, 2017 granting Panther’s motion stated that “all of the claims
asserted by Panther . . . are hereby DISMISSED” and made no mention of reserved
claims. (Rec. Doc. 526 (emphasis added).) Panther has never asked the Court to
amend this order to preserve its defense and indemnity claims against Energy XXI.
Therefore, Panther is correct that Energy XXI’s motion is moot in light of the
December 5, 2017 Order.
However, to avoid any doubt, the Court makes clear that when it dismissed
Panther’s claims on December 5, 2017, the dismissal included Panther’s defense and
indemnity claims against Energy XXI.

Furthermore, the Court notes that it

otherwise agrees with the arguments in Energy XXI’s motion to dismiss and would
likely grant that motion had Panther’s defense and indemnity claims not been
previously dismissed. The Court further notes that its conclusion that Energy XXI’s

Energy XXI alternatively argues that even if Panther did include its defense and indemnity claims
in its Proof of Claim, the bankruptcy court subsequently determined that Energy XXI had no
liability on Panther’s Proof of Claim.
2

2

motion is moot is based in part on Panther’s insistence that its claims against Energy
XXI were previously dismissed.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the Court’s Order of December 5, 2017 (Rec. Doc. 526)
dismissing “all of the claims asserted by Panther Helicopters, Inc., as Plaintiff in Civil
Action No. 14-2326” is CLARIFIED to make absolutely certain that Panther’s claims
for defense and indemnity against Energy XXI were included in the dismissal.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Energy XXI’s Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to
Dismiss (Rec. Doc. 550) is DENIED AS MOOT.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 14th day of August, 2018.

______________________________
United States District Judge

3