Collins et al v. Great Plains Oilfield Rental LLC

Filing 42

ORDER granting 35 Great Plains Oilfield Rental, LLC's Partial Motion to Dismiss (as more fully set out in order). Signed by Honorable Vicki Miles-LaGrange on 6/7/2013. (ks)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
DAVEN COLLINS and
THIALYNN ELAINE COLLINS,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
GREAT PLAINS OILFIELD
RENTAL, LLC, and
CATERPILLAR, INC.,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CIV-12-1108-M

Defendants.
ORDER
Before the Court is Great Plains Oilfield Rental, LLC’s Partial Motion to Dismiss and Brief
in Support, filed May 15, 2013. Plaintiffs’ response was filed on May 23, 2013. Based upon the
parties’ submissions the Court makes its determination.
I.

Introduction
Plaintiffs Daven Collins and Thialynn Elaine Collins (“plaintiffs”) initiated this lawsuit on

October 9, 2012. Plaintiffs contend that on August 11, 2012, Daven Collins was seriously injured
as a result of an explosion and fire that stated in and around oil field equipment installed and
serviced by defendant Great Plains Oil Field Rental, LLC (“Great Plains”). Plaintiffs contend
plaintiff Daven Collins’ injuries were as a direct result of the negligence of Great Plains in the
installation and service of the equipment at the Hodges Trucking Yard located near Elk City,
Oklahoma. On December 5, 2012, plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs
contend in cause two of their Second Amended Complaint that Great Plains violated Federal
Regulations and was negligent per se.

Great Plains contends plaintiffs’ second cause of action

1

should be dismissed for failure to state a claim.
II.

Standard of Review
Regarding the standard for determining whether to dismiss a claim pursuant to Federal Rule

of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), the United States Supreme Court has held:
To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient
factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face. A claim has facial plausibility when the
plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the
reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct
alleged. The plausibility standard is not akin to a “probability
requirement,” but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a
defendant has acted unlawfully. Where a complaint pleads facts that
are merely consistent with a defendant’s liability, it stops short of the
line between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief.
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (internal quotations and citations omitted). Further,
“where the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of
misconduct, the complaint has alleged - but it has not shown - that the pleader is entitled to relief.”
Id. at 679 (internal quotations and citations omitted). Additionally, “[a] pleading that offers labels
and conclusions or a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do. Nor does
a complaint suffice if it tenders naked assertion[s] devoid of further factual enhancement.” Id. at
678 (internal quotations and citations omitted). Finally, “[a] court reviewing the sufficiency of a
complaint presumes all of plaintiff’s factual allegations are true and construes them in the light most
favorable to the plaintiff.” Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1109 (10th Cir. 1991).

2

III.

Discussion
Cause of Action Two of plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint states in its entirety:
Cause of Action Two
14.
15.

16.

The Plaintiffs adopt the allegations in paragraphs 1 through
12.
Great Plains Oilfield Rental, LLC violated Federal
Regulations in the mixing system they installed at the Hodges
Trucking Yard near Elk City, Oklahoma prior to August 11,
2012.
Great Plains Oilfield Rental, LLC was negligent per se.

Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint, page 3.
Having carefully reviewed plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint, the Court finds plaintiffs
have failed to allege sufficient facts to demonstrate that Great Plains violated any Federal Regulation
or that as a result of its actions was negligent per se. Specifically, the Court finds plaintiffs’
conclusory allegation that Great Plains “violated Federal Regulations in the mixing system they
installed” without referencing a federal regulation is insufficient.
IV.

Conclusion
For the above stated reasons, the Court GRANTS Great Plains Oilfield Rental, LLC’s Partial

Motion to Dismiss [docket no. 35].
IT IS SO ORDERED this 7th day of June, 2013.

3