Wright's Well Control Services, LLC v. Oceaneering International, Inc. et al
ORDER granting 151 Motion to Dismiss plaintiff's claims against Christopher Mancini with prejudice; 158 Motion for Summary Judgment and 170 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply are DENIED AS MOOT. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, to the extent plaintiff seeks to reserve any rights to proceed against any other parties and/or solidary obligors in this action, that request is DENIED. Signed by Judge Sarah S. Vance on 4/10/2017. (cg)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
WRIGHT’S WELL CONTROL
INC. AND CHRISTOPHER MANCINI
SECTION “R” (3)
Plaintiff Wright’s Well Control Services, LLC (WWCS) moves to
voluntarily dismiss defendant Christopher Mancini pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2), with prejudice, and with a “reservation of all
rights and actions against co-defendant Oceaneering International, Inc., and
any other parties and solidary obligors.”1 Defendant Mancini opposes the
reservation of rights against unnamed third parties.2 Mancini has also
moved for summary judgment on plaintiff’s claims, 3 and WWCS has moved
the Court for an extension of time to respond to Mancini’s motion for
summary judgment. 4
R. Doc. 151.
R. Doc. 159 at 2.
R. Doc. 158.
R. Doc. 170.
Rule 41(a)(2) gives the Court discretion to dismiss an action under
terms and condition the Court deems proper. See Bechuck v. Home Depot
U.S.A., Inc., 814 F.3d 287, 298 (5th Cir. 2016) (citation omitted). Therefore,
the Court will grant WWCS’s motion to dismiss all claims against Mancini
with prejudice, and its reservation of rights against Oceaneering, but denies
its request to reserve any rights against unnamed third-parties. This case
has been pending for nearly two years, extensive discovery has been
conducted, and WWCS has amended its complaint four times. Despite
discovery and multiple versions of its complaint, WWCS has at no point
identified any other possible third parties or solidary obligors that may be
liable. Trial is scheduled for July 17, 2017, and the deadline to amend
WWCS’s complaint has passed.5 The Court will not permit the reservation
of rights against unnamed third parties on the facts presented here. See
Curol v. Energy Resources Technology Inc., 203 F. App’x 675, 678 (5th Cir.
2006) (finding district court did not abuse discretion in denying request to
reserve rights against party because “AOP never became a party to the action,
and [plaintiff] had no right to proceed against AOP in the case”).
R. Doc. 80 at 2-3.
IT IS ORDERED that the motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claims against
Christopher Mancini with prejudice is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, to the extent plaintiff seeks to reserve
any rights to proceed against any other parties and/or solidary obligors in
this action, that request is DENIED.
Mancini’s motion for summary judgment and WWCS’s motion for an
extension of time to respond to Mancini’s motion are DENIED AS MOOT.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this _____ day of April, 2017.
SARAH S. VANCE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?