O'Keefe et al v. Noble Drilling Corporation d/b/a Noble Drilling Services Inc. et al

Filing 114

OPINION AND ORDER Motion-related deadline set re: 109 MOTION to Dismiss or Alternatively Motion to Dismiss for Forum Non Conveniens of Schlumberger/Brazil; Noble's Responses due by 3/21/2008, Schlumberger/Brazil's Replies due by 4/4/2008.( Signed by Judge John R Froeschner ) Parties notified.(sanderson, )

O'Keefe et al v. Noble Drilling Corporation d/b/a Noble Drilling Services Inc. et al

Doc. 114

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS GALVESTON DIVISION RENATA LUISA SILVA PISCETTA O'KEEFE, ET AL. V. NOBLE DRILLING CORPORATION, ET AL. § § § § § § §

CIVIL ACTION NO. G-05-688

OPINION AND ORDER Having conducted a Status / Scheduling Conference with the Parties on February 22, 2008, this Court issues this Opinion and Order. The Noble Defendants (Noble) filed their Third-Party Complaint against Schlumberger Servicos de Petroleo Ltda. (Schlumberger/Brazil) on April 24, 2007. It was not until February 14, 2008, that Noble finally filed the "official service documents providing service of Third-Party Plaintiffs' Third-Party Complaint complaining of Schlumberger Servicos de Petroleo Ltda. in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, on January 30, 2008," (Instrument no. 104) which Noble asserts is proof that Schlumberger/Brazil has been properly served and is now before the District Court and subject to its jurisdiction. On February 19, 2008, Schlumberger/Brazil, in lieu of an answer, filed its Motions to Dismiss (Instrument no. 109) alleging, inter alia, that Noble's attempt to serve it with process "using a private service and not a letter rogatory" was improper under applicable Brazilian law and was, therefore, legally insufficient. Noble, of course, disagrees, but concedes that if service must be accomplished by means of a Letter Rogatory, then service of process, if it has been

Dockets.Justia.com

initiated at all, is far from being perfected.

The Parties all agree that this issue raises only

questions of law and requires no additional discovery relevant to its resolution. This Court cannot predict how much more delay will be tolerated by the District Court, however, under the present circumstances of this case, and in an effort to make some progress toward its resolution, this Court issues the following Orders. It is ORDERED that on or before March 21, 2008, Noble SHALL file its response to Schlumberger/Brazil's Motion to Dismiss only insofar as the Motion seeks dismissal under Rule 12(b)(5) for insufficient service of process. It is further ORDERED that Schlumberger/Brazil SHALL file its reply to Noble's response on or before April 4, 2008. DONE at Galveston, Texas, this 25th day of February, 2008.

2