Sand Storage, LLC v. Trican Well Service, L.P. et al

Filing 148

ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATIONS granting in part 90 MOTION for Summary Judgment and Related Dispositve Motions, dismissing without prejudice 89 MOTION to Dismiss Tort Claims without Prejudice, granting in part 91 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Signed by Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos) Parties notified.(mserpa, 2)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION
SAND STORAGE, LLC,
Plaintiff,
VS.
TRICAN WELL SERVICE, L.P., et al,
Defendants.

§
§
§
§ CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:13-CV-00303
§
§
§
§

ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
ON THE PARTIES’ DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS
On October 27, 2014, United States Magistrate Judge Jason B. Libby issued his
“Memorandum and Recommendation on the Parties’ Dispositive Motions” (D.E. 137).
The parties were provided proper notice of, and opportunity to object to, the Magistrate
Judge’s Memorandum and Recommendation.

FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b); 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1); General Order No. 2002-13. No objections have been filed.
When no timely objection to a magistrate judge’s memorandum and
recommendation is filed, the district court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear
error on the face of the record and accept the magistrate judge’s memorandum and
recommendation. Guillory v. PPG Industries, Inc., 434 F.3d 303, 308 (5th Cir. 2005)
(citing Douglass v. United Services Auto Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1420 (5th Cir. 1996)).
Having reviewed the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth in the
Magistrate Judge’s Memorandum and Recommendation (D.E. 137), and all other relevant
documents in the record, and finding no clear error, the Court ADOPTS as its own the
findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, the Court:
1/2

• GRANTS Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion to Dismiss (Plaintiff’s) Tort Claims
Without Prejudice (D.E. 89) and DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Plaintiff’s claims for wrongful termination of the contract as a result of
dishonest motive and breach of the implied covenants of the common law
duties of good faith and fair dealing and honest and forthright performance;
• GRANTS IN PART Plaintiff’s Re-Stated Consolidated Motions for Partial
Summary Judgment and Related Dispositive Motions (D.E. 90) and
DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE Trican’s claims regarding (1) delays in
opening the silos, (2) damages arising from silo opening delays; and (3)
delivering the incorrect grade of sand on December 14, 2011 and January 8,
2012.

The Court DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE Trican’s claims for

promissory estoppel and negligent misrepresentation; and
• GRANTS IN PART Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment (D.E. 91)
and DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE Sand Storage’s claim based on a duty
of good faith and fair dealing separate from its breach of contract claim.
In all other respects not set out above, the motions are DENIED.
ORDERED this 17th day of December, 2014.

___________________________________
NELVA GONZALES RAMOS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2/2