IN RE: LAC MEGANTIC TRAIN DERAILMENT LITIGATION

Filing 31

ORDER DENYING CERTAIN MOTIONS AS MOOT re: 4 Motion for Order; 5 Motion for Order; 10 Motion to Intervene By JUDGE JON D. LEVY. (mjlt)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE

IN RE: LAC MÈGANTIC TRAIN
DERAILMENT LITIGATION

)
)
)
)

1:16-cv-01001-JDL

ORDER DENYING CERTAIN MOTIONS AS MOOT
This case arises from a July 6, 2013, train derailment and explosion in Lac
Mégantic, Quebec, as discussed in greater detail in this court’s Order on Canadian
Pacific Railway Company’s Amended Motion to Dismiss. The derailment spawned
litigation in Illinois and Texas that was eventually transferred to the District of
Maine by me pursuant to the authority established in 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(5) and later
consolidated into the instant case.1
I previously granted the Amended Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 2) of the sole
remaining defendant, Canadian Pacific Railway Company (“CP”) and denied the
plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 3). There
remain three motions pending before the court: (1) the plaintiffs’ Motion to Find That
Settlement with Defendants was Made in Good Faith Pursuant to 740 ILCS 100/2(c)
(ECF No. 4); (2) CP’s Cross-Motion for an Order Applying Canadian Non-Pecuniary

For a list of individual case numbers, see ECF No. 1 at 1. Two cases that were originally filed in the
Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Roy v. Western Petroleum Co., et al., 1:14-cv-00113-JDL, and
Grimard v. Rail World, Inc., et al., 1:15-cv-00250-JDL, were removed to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois before being transferred to the District of Maine in 2014. Another 35 cases
followed the same trajectory from the Circuit Court of Cook County to the Northern District of Illinois
before being transferred to the District of Maine in 2016, along with two cases from the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Texas. See Audet, et al. v. Devlar Energy Marketing, LLC, et al.,
1:16-cv-00105-JDL; Boulanger, et al. v. Arrow Midstream Holdings, LLC, et al., 1:16-cv-00106-JDL.
1

Damage Limitations (ECF No. 5); and (3) Estate Representative Robert Keach’s
Motion to Intervene or, in the alternative, for Leave to Intervene on a Limited Basis
(ECF No. 10).
Because the instant case is dismissed as a result of my having granted CP’s
Amended Motion to Dismiss and because I have denied plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave
to File a Second Amended Complaint, the remaining motions listed above are
DENIED AS MOOT.
SO ORDERED.
This 28th day of September 2016.

JON D. LEVY
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

2