Delarosa v. Packaging Corp of America Inc et al

Filing 33

RULING ON OBJECTIONS that the 26 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS will be adopted, 9 MOTION to Remand filed by Guadalupe Delarosa, Jr will be denied and Timothy Wohlers will be dismissed without prejudice; 15 First MOTION to Amend Complaint filed by Guadalupe Delarosa, Jr will be denied. Signed by Judge Robert R Summerhays on 11/13/2018. (crt,FinnSld, P) Modified on 11/14/2018 to edit text (FinnSld, P).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
LAKE CHARLES DIVISION
GUADALUPE DELAROSA, JR.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:18-00186

VERSUS

JUDGE SUMMERHAYS

PACKAGING CORP. OF AMERICA, INC.,

MAG. JUDGE KAY

ET AL
RULING ON OBJECTIONS
Before the court is a “Motion to Remand” (Rec. 9) and a “Motion for Leave to File First
Amended Complaint” (Rec. 15). The Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation 1
wherein she recommended that the Motion to Remand and the Motion to Amend Complaint be
denied. It also recommended that Defendant, Timothy Wohlers, be dismissed without prejudice.
The Court issues this Ruling to address Plaintiff’s objection that the Magistrate Judge erred in
recommending the motion to remand be denied, because she did not resolve all contested issues
of fact in Plaintiff’s favor, and because she “omitted citation of and refrained from discussing the
‘should have known’ element found in the 3rd Cantor factor.” (Rec. 30-2 at 4). 2
The Court finds the Magistrate Judge appropriately exercised her discretion to pierce the
pleadings in this matter. When a plaintiff has stated a claim but has misstated or omitted discrete
facts that would determine the propriety of joinder, the district court may, in its discretion, pierce
the pleadings and conduct a summary inquiry. 3 At a minimum, the complaint omitted discrete facts
pertaining to Wohler’s presence at the time of the explosion and his knowledge of, as well as his

1

Rec. #26.
The Court finds Plaintiff’s remaining objections are without merit, and overrules them without further
discussion.
3
Guillory v. PPG Industries, Inc. 434 F.3d 303 (5th Cir. 2005).
2

1

responsibility for the welding work. The Defendant cannot rely on the lack of evidence alone but
must negate every element of his claim. 4 Defendant, Wohlers, submitted an affidavit which
effectively negates his responsibility and therefore his personal duty to the welders on the day of
the explosion. Wohlers had no knowledge of the welding being done on the day of the explosion,
he had no involvement in the permitting process, he was not present at the worksite at the time of
the explosion, and thus he could nor should have been aware of the risks involved. Moreover,
Wohlers had no reason to know of the hazardous conditions created by the welding work
performed over the tank. There are no allegations that welding was a regular occurrence or
something that Wohlers should have anticipated. These facts are uncontradicted. The undersigned
is satisfied that Defendant, Wohlers, has met his burden of proof to preclude the possibility of
recovery.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, for these additional reasons, the Report and Recommendation will be
adopted, the Motion to Remand will be denied, and Defendant, Timothy Wohlers, will be
dismissed without prejudice. In addition, the motion to amend will be denied for the reasons stated
in the Report and Recommendation.
THUS DONE AND SIGNED in Lafayette, Louisiana on this 13th day of November, 2018.

_____________________________________
ROBERT R. SUMMERHAYS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
4

Davidson v. Georgia-Pacific, LLC, 819 F.3d 758, 766 & n.9 (5th Cir. 2016).
2