Bridges et al v. Chevron Phillips Chemical Company, LP et al
Filing
48
RULING: Shell Oil Company's Motion to Dismiss Under Rule 12(b)(6), For Leave to Perform Jurisdictional Discovery, and For a More Definite Statement Under Rule 12(c) is granted, in part. The motion is granted insofar as the defendant sought an order requiring the plaintiffs to file an amended petition which clarifies the factual basis for each plaintiff's Jones Act claim against the defendant. Plaintiffs shall have until 12/6/2013 to file their amended petition. The other aspects of the defendant's motion are denied, without prejudice. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Riedlinger on 11/22/2013. (JDL)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
DAVID BRIDGES, ET AL.
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NUMBER 13-477-JJB-SCR
PHILLIPS 66 COMPANY, ET AL.
RULING ON MOTION TO DISMISS, OR ALTERNATIVELY
FOR LEAVE TO PERFORM JURISDICTIONAL DISCOVERY
AND FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT
Before the court is Shell Oil Company’s Motion to Dismiss
Under Rule 12(b)(6), For Leave to Perform Jurisdictional Discovery,
and For a More Definite Statement Under Rule 12(c).
document number 20.
Record
Plaintiffs filed an opposition.1
All of the parties’ arguments have been considered. The court
cannot agree with the plaintiffs’ argument that they have alleged
sufficient
facts
for
Petition for Damages.
the
defendant
to
answer
their
Seamen’s
As the defendant correctly argued, the
plaintiffs’ vague and undifferentiated allegations claiming to be
Jones Act seamen are not sufficient.
As the pleadings stand now,
there are not sufficient facts alleged for the defendant, or the
court, to determine whether any of the plaintiffs are even arguably
Jones Act seamen as to defendant Shell.2
1
2
Record document number 23.
Plaintiffs stated in their opposition memorandum that the
only plaintiff that worked for Shell is Thomas Sullivan. Id., at
p. 4.
In these circumstances, the best and most expeditious course
of action is to require the plaintiffs to amend their petition to
allege the specific facts needed to plead a Jones Act claim against
defendant Shell.
Although the same result could be obtained by
recommending that the defendant’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion be granted
unless the plaintiffs file an amended petition which cures the
deficient Jones Act allegations, simply requiring them to file an
amended
petition
gets
to
the
same
result
directly.
If
the
defendant believes that the plaintiffs’ amended petition is still
deficient, it may again move to dismiss for failure to state a
Jones Act claim.
Insofar as the defendant sought jurisdictional discovery, that
aspect of the motion is denied without prejudice. While permitting
limited jurisdictional discovery is clearly within the court’s
discretion, even limited discovery will likely be time consuming,
as well as costly to the numerous parties in this case.
After the
plaintiffs have amended their petition, the parties and the court
can better assess what, if any, jurisdictional discovery may be
warranted.
Accordingly, Shell Oil Company’s Motion to Dismiss Under Rule
12(b)(6), For Leave to Perform Jurisdictional Discovery, and For a
More Definite Statement Under Rule 12(c) is granted, in part.
motion
is
requiring
granted
the
insofar
plaintiffs
as
to
the
file
2
defendant
an
amended
sought
The
an
order
petition
which
clarifies the factual basis for each plaintiff’s Jones Act claim
against the defendant.
Plaintiffs shall have until December 6,
2013 to file their amended petition.
The other aspects of the
defendant’s motion are denied, without prejudice.
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, November 22, 2013.
STEPHEN C. RIEDLINGER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
3
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?