Majestic Offshore, LLC et al v. In-Depth Offshore Technologies International, Inc et al

Filing 79

RULING denying #68 Motion for More Definite Statement. Signed by Judge James J. Brady on 3/23/2012. (LSM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
MAJESTIC OFFSHORE, LLC, ET AL
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NO. 10-384-JJB-DLD
IN-DEPTH OFFSHORE TECHNOLOGIES
INTERNATIONAL, INC.
RULING ON MOTION FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT
This matter is before the Court on a Motion for More Definite Statement
(doc. 68) filed by ENI Petroleum Company (“ENI”), a co-defendant in this suit.
Plaintiff Majestic Offshore (“Majestic”) filed an opposition (doc. 75), to which ENI
did not reply. There is no need for oral argument. For the following reasons, the
motion is denied.
Plaintiffs own and operate unmanned, remotely operated, submarines
(“ROV”). It was hired in May 2009 by Defendant In-Depth Offshore Technologies
(“In-Depth”) to work aboard an offshore platform co-owned and operated by
Defendants Saipem American (“Saipem”) and ENI. During the use of the ROV, it
was damaged. Majestic brought suit in May, 2010, against In-Depth and various
other parties, some of whom have been dismissed (docs. 39 and 44) and others
who have not. After discovering during discovery that ENI was a co-owner of the
platform, Plaintiffs amended their complaint to add ENI on November 7, 2011.
(Doc. 75-1).

Specifically, Plaintiffs amended the complaint with the following

addition: “in all places where Saipem America Inc. is mentioned . . . the complaint

should be amended to read Saipem America Inc. and/or ENI Petroleum Inc.”
(Doc. 59 at 2). ENI brings this motion seeking a more definite statement of the
allegations against it.
Under Rule 12(e), a party may move for a more definite statement if a
pleading to which a response is allowed is so vague or ambiguous that the
responding party cannot reasonably prepare a response. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e).
ENI complains that the only allegation against it is a statement in the
supplemental and amended complaint adding ENI’s name wherever Saipem’s
name shows up. (Doc. 68-1 at 4). As Majestic notes in its opposition, ENI and
Saipem are co-owners and operators of the platform and the crane, and thus the
employer of the allegedly negligent crane operator. (Doc. 75-1 at 3). As to ENI’s
complaint that it cannot determine where the alleged incident occurred, the Court
notes that the original complaint states the platform where the work was to be
done was located approximately 40 miles south of Houma, Louisiana. (Doc. 1-1
at 3). If ENI and Saipem co-own and operate so many platforms in that area that
ENI cannot discern at which the accident occurred—a problem Saipem does not
seem to have—then a more definite statement might be in order. Otherwise, the
Court finds the complaint is not so vague or ambiguous as to prevent ENI from
reasonably preparing a response.
For these reasons, the Defendant ENI’s motion (doc. 68) is denied.
Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on March 23, 2012.
2





JUDGE JAMES J. BRADY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

3