Red Rocks Resources LLC v. Trident Steel Corporation

Filing 83

ORDER denying 77 North American Interpipe's Motion to Reconsider Laguna Tubular Products Corporation's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. Signed by Honorable Robin J. Cauthron on 8/17/16. (lg)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
RED ROCKS RESOURCES L.L.C.,
d/b/a Red Rocks Oil and Gas
Operating, a Colorado Limited
Liability Company,

)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
TRIDENT STEEL CORPORATION,
)
a Missouri corporation,
)
)
Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
NORTH AMERICAN INTERPIPE, INC., )
)
Third-Party Defendant.
)

Case No. CIV-14-0948-C

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff brought this action against Defendant Trident Steel Corporation (“Trident”)
after casing it had placed in an oil well failed. Trident in turn sued North American Interpipe,
Inc. (“NAI”) and Laguna Tubular Products Corporation (“Laguna”). Laguna filed a Motion
to Dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2), arguing the Court lacked personal
jurisdiction over it. The Court granted the parties additional time to conduct jurisdictional
discovery and ultimately granted Laguna’s Motion to Dismiss. Defendant NAI now requests
the Court reconsider that decision. In support of its motion, NAI argues that during
discovery in an independent case it learned additional facts which support this Court’s
exercise of personal jurisdiction over Laguna. To that end, NAI requests the Court vacate

its earlier Order and reinstate Laguna as a party to this case. Plaintiff objects, arguing that
NAI has failed to satisfy its burden to warrant reconsideration of the Court’s previous Order.
To be entitled to a change in the Court’s prior Order, NAI has the burden to show one
of three things: (1) an intervening change in the controlling law, (2) the existence of new
evidence that was previously unavailable, or (3) the need to correct clear error or prevent
manifest injustice. Servants of the Paraclete v. Does I-XVI, 204 F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir.
2000). Here, neither party suggests that the controlling law has changed. Thus, the first
option is inapplicable. While NAI has offered some additional evidence that was not earlier
considered by the Court, it offers no argument or evidence demonstrating that that
information was not or could not have been available to it previously during the period the
parties were conducting jurisdictional discovery. Thus, the second option does not provide
a basis on which to reconsider the Court’s Order. Finally, as for the third prong, NAI has not
demonstrated the existence of clear error or manifest injustice. As Plaintiff notes, the claims
between NAI and Laguna are in the nature of indemnity. Certainly nothing would prevent
NAI from obtaining relief on any claim it may have against Laguna in a court which has
personal jurisdiction over Laguna. Therefore, there is no compelling reason to pursue those
claims here. Further, returning Laguna to this case at this stage would work a significant
prejudice to Plaintiff. This matter is currently set for trial on the Court’s January 10, 2017,
docket. Bringing Laguna into the action would require an extension of that date. As this
case has already been pending for nearly two years, additional delay is unwarranted.

2

For the reasons set forth herein, NAI’s Motion to Reconsider Laguna Tubular
Products Corporation’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (Dkt. No. 77) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 17th day of August, 2016.

3