Jones, Et Al v. Halliburton Company et al

Filing 20

Defendants' ANSWER to Amended Complaint Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint by KBR, Inc., Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc., Kellogg Brown & Root International, Inc., Kellogg Brown & Root LLC, Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc, Kellogg Brown & Root, S. de R.L., Halliburton Company, KBR Technical Services, Inc, Overseas Administrative Services, LTD.(Sloan, Shadow)

Jones, Et Al v. Halliburton Company et al

Doc. 20

Case 1:07-cv-00295-TH

Document 20

Filed 06/11/2007

Page 1 of 12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS BEAUMONT DIVISION JAMIE JONES and JOSEPH DAIGLE, Plaintiffs, § § § § VS. § § HALLIBURTON COMPANY d/b/a § KBR KELLOGG BROWN & ROOT § (KBR); KELLOGG BROWN & ROOT § SERVICES, INC.; BROWN & ROOT § INTERNATIONAL, INC.; KELLOGG § BROWN & ROOT, LLC; KELLOGG § BROWN & ROOT, INC.; KELLOGG § BROWN & ROOT, S. de R.L.; KELLOGG § BROWN & ROOT (KBR), INC.; KBR § TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC.; § OVERSEAS ADMINISTRATIVE § SERVICES, LTD.; ERIC ILER, § CHARLES BOARTZ; SEVERAL § JOHN DOE RAPISTS, and THE § UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, § Defendants. §

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:07-CV-0295

DEFENDANTS' ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Defendants, Halliburton Company, Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc., Kellogg Brown & Root International, Inc., Kellogg Brown & Root LLC, Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc., Kellogg Brown & Root S. de R.L., KBR, Inc., KBR Technical Services, Inc., and Overseas Administrative Services, Ltd. ("Defendants") file this answer to Plaintiffs' first amended complaint as follows. The above named Defendants acknowledge that Plaintiffs have filed suit alleging various causes of action, but deny that any of the claims have merit. Defendants object to the

sensationalized and inaccurate description of the facts gratuitously added in the preamble of the

Dockets.Justia.com

Case 1:07-cv-00295-TH

Document 20

Filed 06/11/2007

Page 2 of 12

complaint. Defendants deny all the allegations in the first amended complaint which are not specifically admitted below and reserve the right to further amend this answer. I. 1. Nature of the Case

Defendants admit that Plaintiffs have brought this action asserting the claims

described in paragraph 1, and that Jamie Jones was a direct employee of KBR Technical Services, Inc. (KBRTSI) in Houston, Texas, and Overseas Administrative Services, Inc. (OAS) in Iraq, and that Camp Hope was under the jurisdiction of the United States Department of State, but deny the remaining allegations of paragraph 1. 2. Defendants admit that Ms. Jones was hired by KBRTSI as an administrative

assistant in Houston, Texas on April 15, 2004 and that she signed a written employment agreement with Overseas Administrative Services, Ltd. effective on July 21, 2005. Defendants are without sufficient information to admit or deny the remaining allegations of paragraph 2 and therefore deny same. 3. Defendants are without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations of

paragraph 3 and therefore deny same. 4. Defendants admit that Halliburton Company is headquartered in Houston, Harris

County, Texas; that Halliburton conducts business in Texas; and that Halliburton may be served with process through its registered agent, CT Corporation System, of Houston, Texas, but denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 4. 5. Defendants admit that KBR, Inc. is the ultimate parent company of Kellogg

Brown & Root International, Inc., Kellogg Brown & Root LLC, KBR Technical Services, Inc., and Kellogg Brown & Root, S. de R.L.; that they have their primary place of business in Houston, Harris County, Texas and may be served with process through their registered agent,

-2-

Case 1:07-cv-00295-TH

Document 20

Filed 06/11/2007

Page 3 of 12

CT Corporation System.

Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc. is no longer an active company.

Defendants deny the remaining allegations of paragraph 5. 6. Defendants admit that OAS is incorporated in the Cayman Islands; Defendants

deny the remaining allegations of paragraph 6. 7. Defendants admit that Mr. Boartz' last known residence is the address stated in

Florida, but deny the remaining allegations of paragraph 7. 8. Defendants are without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations of

paragraph 8 and therefore deny same. 9. Defendants are without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations of

paragraph 9 and therefore deny same. 10. Defendants admit this Court has jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship and

federal question and that the amount in controversy exceeds the minimum jurisdictional level of this court but deny the remaining allegations of paragraph 10. 11. Defendants admit that Plaintiffs executed a binding arbitration agreement but

violated that agreement to bring this suit. Defendants acknowledge that Plaintiffs request that the Court ignore the agreement to arbitrate, but deny that the request is appropriate or in the interests of justice. 12. Defendants admit that Jamie Jones was employed by KBRTSI as an

administrative assistant in Houston on April 15, 2004 and reported to Eric Iler until March 27, 2005. The remaining allegations of paragraph 12 are denied. 13. Paragraph 13 is denied.

-3-

Case 1:07-cv-00295-TH

Document 20

Filed 06/11/2007

Page 4 of 12

14.

Defendants admit that Jamie Jones worked in another department, for another

supervisor other than Mr. Iler prior to her employment with OAS on July 21, 2005 at Camp Hope, Iraq. The remaining allegations of paragraph 14 are denied. 15. 16. Paragraph 15 is denied. Defendants admit that Jamie Jones began work at Camp Hope in Baghdad, Iraq

on July 25, 2005 and that she was assigned to a co-ed barracks, with bathrooms on the first floor, and that employees were not prohibited from consuming alcohol at Camp Hope. The remaining allegations of paragraph 16 are denied. 17. 18. Paragraph 17 is denied. Defendants admit that Jamie Jones reported an alleged sexual assault to Pete

Arroyo, that she was immediately transported to the combat area surgical hospital run by the U.S. Army, where a rape kit was administered, and that KBR informed the U.S. State Department of the incident. Defendants are unable to admit or deny the remaining allegations of paragraph 18 and therefore deny same. 19. Defendants admit that Camp Hope was under the jurisdiction of the U.S.

Department of State. The remaining allegations of paragraph 19 are denied. 20. 21. 22. Paragraph 20 is denied. Paragraph 21 is denied. Defendants admit that Plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs of their complaint into

paragraph 22 and respond to those paragraphs as noted above. 23. Defendants admit that Jamie Jones was a female employee entitled to the

protections of federal law prohibiting sexual harassment but deny the remaining allegations of paragraph 23.

-4-

Case 1:07-cv-00295-TH

Document 20

Filed 06/11/2007

Page 5 of 12

24. 25. 26. 27. 28.

Paragraph 24 is denied. Paragraph 25 is denied. Paragraph 26 is denied. Paragraph 27 is denied. Defendants are without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations of

paragraph 28 and therefore deny same. 29. 30. Paragraph 29 is denied. Defendants admit that Plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs of their complaint into

paragraph 30 and respond to those paragraphs as noted above. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. Paragraph 31 is denied. Paragraph 32 is denied. Paragraph 33 is denied. Paragraph 34 is denied. Defendants admit that Plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs of their complaint into

paragraph 35 and respond to those paragraphs as noted above. 36. Defendants are without knowledge to admit or deny the allegations of

paragraph 36 with respect to the United States of America and therefore deny same. 37. Defendants admit that Jamie Jones was entitled to the protections of federal law

prohibiting sexual harassment. The remaining allegations of paragraph 37 are denied. 38. Defendants are without knowledge to admit or deny the allegations of

paragraph 38 and therefore deny same. 39. Paragraph 39 is denied.

-5-

Case 1:07-cv-00295-TH

Document 20

Filed 06/11/2007

Page 6 of 12

40.

Defendants admit that Plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs of their complaint into

paragraph 40 and respond to those paragraphs as noted above. 41. Defendants admit that Jamie Jones is entitled to the protections of federal law

prohibiting sexual harassment but deny the remaining allegations of paragraph 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. Paragraph 42 is denied. Paragraph 43 is denied. Paragraph 44 is denied. Defendants admit that Plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs of their complaint into

paragraph 45 and respond to those paragraphs as noted above. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. Paragraph 46 is denied. Paragraph 47 is denied. Paragraph 48 is denied. Paragraph 49. is denied. Defendants admit that Plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs of their complaint into

paragraph 50 and respond to those paragraphs as noted above. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. Paragraph 51 is denied. Paragraph 52 is denied. Paragraph 53 is denied. Paragraph 54 is denied. Defendants admit that Plaintiffs have pled multiple theories of liability and

recovery with no election of remedies. 56. Paragraph 56 is denied.

-6-

Case 1:07-cv-00295-TH

Document 20

Filed 06/11/2007

Page 7 of 12

57.

Defendants admit that Plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs of their complaint into

paragraph 57 and respond to those paragraphs as noted above. 58. Defendants admit that Jamie Jones executed an employment agreement with OAS

on July 21, 2005 but deny the remaining allegations of paragraph 58. 59. 60. 61. Paragraph 59 is denied. Paragraph 60 is denied. Defendants admit that Plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs of their complaint into

paragraph 61 and respond to those paragraphs as noted above. 62. Defendants admit that Jamie Jones signed an employment agreement with OAS

that governed her employment in Iraq but deny the remaining allegations of paragraph 62. 63. 64. Paragraph 63 is denied. Defendants admit that Plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs of their complaint into

paragraph 64 and respond to those paragraphs as noted above. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. Paragraph 65 is denied. Paragraph 66 is denied. Paragraph 67 is denied. Paragraph 68 is denied. Defendants admit that Plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs of their complaint into

paragraph 69 and respond to those paragraphs as noted above. 70. 71. 72. Paragraph 70 is denied. Paragraph 71 is denied. Defendants admit that Plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs of their complaint into

paragraph 72 and respond to those paragraphs as noted above.

-7-

Case 1:07-cv-00295-TH

Document 20

Filed 06/11/2007

Page 8 of 12

73. 74. 75.

Paragraph 73 is denied. Paragraph 74 is denied. Defendants admit that Plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs of their complaint into

paragraph 75 and respond to those paragraphs as noted above. 76. any damages. 77. Defendants admit that Joseph Daigle also seeks damages but deny that he is Defendants admit that Jamie Jones seeks damages but deny that she is entitled to

entitled to the damages pled. 78. Defendants admit that Plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs of their complaint into

paragraph 78 and respond to those paragraphs as noted above. 79. 80. Paragraph 79 is denied. Defendants admit that Plaintiffs seek exemplary damages but deny that they are

entitled to such damages. 81. 82. 83. Paragraph 81 is denied. Paragraph 82 is denied. Defendants admit that Plaintiffs seek punitive or exemplary damages but deny

that they are entitled to such damages. 84. Defendants admit that Plaintiffs seek prejudgment interest and costs of court but

deny that they are entitled to such relief. 85. 86. Defendants admit that Plaintiffs has made a jury demand. Defendants admit that Plaintiffs seek monetary damages and other relief but deny

that they are entitled to any such relief.

-8-

Case 1:07-cv-00295-TH

Document 20

Filed 06/11/2007

Page 9 of 12

II. 87.

Affirmative Defenses

Plaintiffs' claims are barred by the Defense Base Act, the Longshore Harbor

Workers Compensation Act, and the War Hazards Compensation Act. 88. Plaintiffs' claims are barred because the alleged injuries to Plaintiff were incurred

during combatant activities in time of war involving the United States military and defense contractors, and are therefore barred by 28 U.S.C. § 2680(j). 89. Plaintiffs' claims are barred by the government contractor defense pursuant to the

discretionary function exception under 28 U.S.C. § 2680(a). 90. Plaintiffs' claims are barred because the alleged injuries to Plaintiff occurred on

foreign soil as part of work for a defense contractor supporting the United States military, and is therefore barred by 28 U.S.C. § 2680(k). 91. 92. Plaintiffs' claims are barred by the government contractor defense. Plaintiffs have no right to recover from Defendants because Plaintiffs' alleged

injuries were the result of the actions of third parties, whose conduct constitutes an intervening and superseding cause. 93. Plaintiffs' claims may be barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of

contributory and/or comparative negligence. 94. 95. Plaintiffs' injuries were caused while Plaintiff, Jamie Jones, was intoxicated. Plaintiffs' claims, if any, for exemplary damages is limited by Tex. Civ. Prac. &

Rem. Code § 41.008. 96. Plaintiffs' damages, if any, may be subject to offset for benefits received under

the Defense Base Act and/or the War Hazards Compensation Act. 97. Any alleged act of sexual assault by an employee is outside the scope of any such

person's duties for Defendants. -9-

Case 1:07-cv-00295-TH

Document 20

Filed 06/11/2007

Page 10 of 12

98.

Plaintiff, Jamie Jones, suffered from various pre-existing conditions, which are a

part of the damages being sought in this case. 99. Plaintiffs' claims may be barred, in whole or in part, by a failure to mitigate or

minimize damages. 100. Plaintiffs have waived their right to challenge the arbitrability of their claims by

filing a demand for arbitration in February 2006. 101. Defendants' actions and statements with respect to Plaintiffs were privileged or

with legal justification. 102. 103. 104. Plaintiff Jamie Jones has failed to exhaust her administrative remedies. Plaintiffs' claims are barred, in part, by limitations. Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

Defendants respectfully request that Plaintiffs' amended complaint be dismissed, and that Defendants have such general relief, at law or in equity, to which they may show themselves justly entitled.

-10-

Case 1:07-cv-00295-TH

Document 20

Filed 06/11/2007

Page 11 of 12

Respectfully submitted,

MEHAFFYWEBER
___/s/ M. C. Carrington_________ M. C. CARRINGTON, Of Counsel State Bar No. 03880800 Post Office Box 16 Beaumont, Texas 77704 [phone] [phone] (fax) ___/s/ Shadow Sloan____________ SHADOW SLOAN State Bar No. 18507550 Federal ID No. 11372 V. LORAINE CHRIST State Bar No. 24050417 Federal ID No. 611166 VINSON & ELKINS L.L.P. First City Tower 1001 Fannin Street, Suite 2500 Houston, Texas 77002-6760 [phone] [phone] (fax) ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS, KBR, KELLOGG BROWN & ROOT, KELLOGG BROWN & ROOT SERVICES, INC., KELLOGG BROWN & ROOT INTERNATIONAL, INC., KELLOGG BROWN & ROOT, LLC, KELLOGG BROWN & ROOT, INC., KBR TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC.; OVERSEAS ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, LTD.; AND KELLOGG BROWN & ROOT S. de R.L.

-11-

Case 1:07-cv-00295-TH

Document 20

Filed 06/11/2007

Page 12 of 12

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this 11th day of June 2007 a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was filed electronically by using the CM/ECF and/or by first-class mail, return receipt requested, on Plaintiff's counsel, addressed as follows: L. Todd Kelly The Kelly Law Firm, P.C. One Riverway Drive, Suite 1150 777 South Post Oak Lane Houston, Texas 77056-1920 Paul Waldner Vickery, Waldner & Mallia, L.L.C. One Riverway, Suite 1150 Houston, Texas 77056 Stephanie M. Morris Attorney at Law 1660 L Street N.W., Suite 506 Washington, D.C. 20036 ___/s/ Shadow Sloan____________ Attorney for Defendants
3282484v.1

Houston 3286089v.1

-12-