Jernigan et al v. Dune Energy, Inc. et al

Filing 66

ORDER AND REASONS denying 49 Joint MOTION to Re-Set Submission Date on Underwriters' motions to dismiss and Island Operating's motion to stay; The two motions to dismiss and the motion to stay consideration of those motions will come under submission on 1/6/2015. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 1/5/2016.(blg)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

ALICIA DANTIN JERNIGAN ET AL.

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

No. 15-1171

DUNE ENERGY, INC. ET AL.

SECTION I

ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is an opposed motion1 jointly filed by plaintiffs and defendant/third–party
plaintiff, Island Operating Company, Inc. (“Island Operating”), to continue the submission date on
defendant/third–party defendant, Certain Underwriters at Lloyds of London’s (“Underwriters”),
motions 2 to dismiss the claims against them or to compel arbitration of those claims. Underwriters’
motions to dismiss are currently set for submission on Wednesday, January 6, 2016. Plaintiffs and
Island Operating request that those motions be reset for submission on February 3, 2016.
Briefs in opposition 3 to the motions to dismiss have already been filed, as have replies 4 to
those oppositions. The motions to dismiss are ripe for submission. Underwriters, who did not
oppose the two previous continuances of the submission dates requested by Island Operating 5 and
granted by this Court, 6 now oppose 7 any further delay regarding the consideration of their motions

1

R. Doc. No. 49.
R. Doc. Nos. 20, 22. The joint motion to continue the submission date only refers to one motion
to dismiss, but Underwriters actually have two motions to dismiss that come under submission on
January 6, 2016. Also set for submission on that date is Island Operating’s motion to stay
consideration of its third–party claims against Underwriters. As there is no reason that these three
related motions should not be decided by the Court at the same time, the Court construes the joint
motion as requesting a new, corresponding submission date on all three motions.
3
R. Doc. Nos. 38, 42.
4
R. Doc. Nos. 54, 55.
5
R. Doc. Nos. 26, 40.
6
R. Doc. Nos. 27, 47.
7
R. Doc. No. 56.
2

to dismiss. For the following reasons, the Court agrees with Underwriters that further delay is
unnecessary and that the joint motion should be denied.
The joint motion seeks a continuance to February 3, 2016 in order that two other
decisions—one by this Court and one by the bankruptcy court—can be rendered prior to the
Court’s resolution of the motions to dismiss and the motion to stay. First, Island Operating’s
request to file a second amended cross claim and third–party complaint is set for submission before
U.S. Magistrate Judge Roby on January 6, 2016. 8 Island Operating requests that it be permitted
to amend its complaint in order to clarify that it is asserting “a Parfait tender claim for
reimbursement of the settlement amount paid by Island Operating to the original Complainants.” 9
Second, the joint motion seeks a continuance because “the Texas bankruptcy court overseeing the
bankruptcy proceeding . . . has scheduled a hearing for January 25, 2016 with regard to the joint
movants’ motion to lift the Bankruptcy stay” currently in place as to Dune Energy, Inc. (“Dune”).10
Neither of these upcoming decisions clearly warrants delay in submission of Underwriters’
motions to dismiss and Island Operating’s motion to stay. As the joint movants recognize, this
litigation presents Island Operating with two “separate and distinct avenues for seeking
reimbursement [from Underwriters] for the settlement amount [Island Operating] paid.” 11 The
first potential avenue of recovery is via a judgment against Dune, the second avenue is via the
“additional insured” claim against Underwriters. The bankruptcy court’s order regarding the stay
and this Court’s decision regarding Island Operating’s attempt to amend its complaint affect only
the first avenue. The forthcoming orders will not have any effect on the additional insured claims

8

R. Doc. No. 34.
R. Doc. No. 49, at 1.
10
R. Doc. No. 49, at 2.
11
R. Doc. No. 49-1, at 2.
9

2

against Underwriters or on Underwriters’ defenses to those claims, which are the subject of the
motions to dismiss. While plaintiffs and Island Operating may prefer a particular order of
resolution of their claims in this case, they are not entitled to have their claims resolved in such a
manner. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the joint motion to reset the submission date on Underwriters’
motions to dismiss and Island Operating’s motion to stay is DENIED. The two motions to dismiss
and the motion to stay consideration of those motions will come under submission on Wednesday,
January 6, 2015.

New Orleans, Louisiana, January 5, 2016.

_______________________________________
LANCE M. AFRICK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3