Bridges et al v. Chevron Phillips Chemical Company, LP et al

Filing 75

RULING granting in part and denying in part #53 , #54 Motions to Dismiss Under Rule 12(b)(6), For Leave to Perform Jurisdictional Discovery, and, Alternatively, For a More Definite Statement Under Rule 12(e). Plaintiffs shall have until 3/6/2015 to file their amended petition. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Riedlinger on 02/20/2015. (BCL)

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 MOTIONS TO DISMISS, OR ALTERNATIVELY
FOR LEAVE TO PERFORM JURISDICTIONAL DISCOVERY
AND FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT
Before the court are defendant Noble Drilling Corporation’s
Motion to Dismiss Under Rule 12(b)(6), For Leave to Perform
Jurisdictional Discovery, and, Alternatively, For a More Definite
Statement Under Rule 12(e) and defendant ENSCO Offshore Company’s
Motion to Dismiss Under Rule 12(b)(6), For Leave to Perform
Jurisdictional Discovery, and, Alternatively, For a More Definite
Statement Under Rule 12(e).

Record document numbers 53 and 54,

respectively. Defendants Murphy Exploration & Production Company USA, Inc., and Murphy Exploration & Production Company joined in
both motions. Record document numbers 58 and 66. Plaintiffs filed
oppositions to each motion.1
On a similar motion filed by Shell Oil Company, the court
determined that the plaintiffs’ failed to alleged sufficient facts

1

Record document numbers 59, 60, and 61.
Drilling Corporation filed a reply memorandum.
number 62.

Defendant Noble
Record document

for defendant Shell to answer their Seamen’s Petition for Damages.2
The court found that the plaintiffs’ allegations claiming to be
Jones Act seamen were vague and undifferentiated and required the
plaintiffs to amend their petition to allege the specific facts
needed to plead a Jones Act claim against the moving defendant,
Shell Oil Company.
After that ruling was issued, the plaintiffs voluntarily
dismissed Shell Oil Company

3

and did not file an amended complaint

pursuant to the ruling or otherwise.

Plaintiffs’ arguments in

response to present motions are based on the allegations in the
original petition.

As found before in the ruling on Shell Oil

Company’s motion, the allegations in the original petition fail to
state sufficient facts for the defendants, or the court, to
determine whether any of the plaintiffs are even arguably Jones Act
seamen as to any of the moving defendants.
As done before in the ruling on Shell Oil Company’s motion,
the plaintiffs shall be required to amend their petition to allege
the specific facts needed to plead a Jones Act claim against each
of the moving defendants.

This is still the better course of

action, compared to recommending that the defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6)
motions be granted unless the plaintiffs file an amended petition

2

Record document number 48, Ruling on Motion to Dismiss, or
Alternatively For Leave to Perform Jurisdictional Discovery, and
For a More Definite Statement.
3

Record document number 51 and 57.
2

which cures the deficient Jones Act allegations. If the defendants
believe that the plaintiffs’ amended petition is still deficient,
they may again move to dismiss for failure to state a Jones Act
claim.
Insofar as the defendants 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, defendant Noble Drilling Corporation’s Motion to
Dismiss Under Rule 12(b)(6), For Leave to Perform Jurisdictional
Discovery, and, Alternatively, For a More Definite Statement Under
Rule 12(E), and defendant ENSCO Offshore Company’s Motion to
Dismiss Under Rule 12(b)(6), For Leave to Perform Jurisdictional
Discovery, and, Alternatively, For a More Definite Statement Under
Rule

12(E),

are

granted,

in

part.

This

ruling

applies

to

defendants Murphy Exploration & Production Company - USA, Inc., and
Murphy Exploration & Production Company as they joined in these
motions.

The motions are granted insofar as the moving defendants

sought an order requiring the plaintiffs to file an amended
petition which clarifies the factual basis for each plaintiff’s

3

Jones Act claim against each of the moving defendants, namely Noble
Drilling Corporation, ENSCO Offshore Company, Murphy Exploration &
Production Company - USA, Inc., and Murphy Exploration & Production
Company.

Plaintiffs shall have until March 6, 2015 to file their

amended petition. The other aspects of the defendants’ motions are
denied, without prejudice.
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, February 20, 2015.

STEPHEN C. RIEDLINGER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

4