Carter et al v. EOG Resources, Inc. et al

Filing 84

ORDER: Status Conference set for 2/25/2014 at 10:00 AM by telephone before Magistrate Judge Charles S. Miller, Jr. By Magistrate Judge Charles S. Miller, Jr. (BG)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA
NORTHWESTERN DIVISION
Dawn Carter as personal representative
of the Estate of Jereme Loydd Mortinson,
deceased, and Dawn Carter, on behalf of
the heirs and next of kin of Jereme Loydd
Mortinson, deceased,

)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
vs.
)
)
EOG Resources, Inc., Crude Processing,
)
Inc., a/k/a Midstream Services, LLC,
)
Superior Well Services, Inc., Halliburton
)
Energy Services, Inc.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________ )
)
EOG Resources, Inc.,
)
)
Third-Party Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
S&S Sales 2008, Inc.,
)
)
Third-Party Defendant.
)
____________________________________ )
)
S&S Sales 2008, Inc.,
)
)
Fourth-Party Defendant,
)
)
vs.
)
)
RES Investments, LLC,
)
)
Fourth-Party Defendant.
)

ORDER

Case No. 4:12-cv-003

The court shall conduct a status conference with the parties by telephone on February 25, 2014,

1

at 10:00 a.m. CST. Participants to the conference call should call the following number and enter the
following access code:
Tel. No: 877-848-7030
Access Code: 9768929
The purpose of the conference call is to clear up discrepancies in the record as to which parties remain
in this action1 and otherwise visit with the parties to gauge their interest in a court-hosted settlement
conference.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 11th day of February, 2014.
/s/ Charles S. Miller, Jr.
Charles S. Miller, Jr., Magistrate Judge
United States District Court

1

On September 26, 2013, the parties filed a stipulation for dismissal of plaintiffs’ claims against Superior Well
Services, Inc., Haliburton Energy Services, and Crude Processing, Inc., formerly known as CCS Midstream Services,
LLC, now known as Tervita LLC (“Crude Processing”), without prejudice. (Docket No. 33). The court adopted the
stipulation in an order dated September 28, 2013. (Docket No. 34).
Although the claims against Crude Processing had been dismissed, it appears that Crude Processing filed
responses to plaintiffs’ subsequent motion to amend their complaint and also joined in an appeal of the undersigned order
granting plaintiffs’ motion to amend. (Docket Nos. 50, 58, 62-63).

2