Verdin v. Anadarko Petroleum Corporation
Filing
14
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 7 MOTION to Dismiss 1 Complaint or, Alternatively, Motion for More Definite Statement (Signed by Judge Sim Lake) Parties notified. (aboyd, 4)
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
December 07, 2016
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
JERMAINE VERDIN,
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Plaintiff,
v.
ANADARKO PETROLEUM CORPORATION,
Defendant.
David J. Bradley, Clerk
CIVIL ACTION NO. H-16-2647
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pending before
the
court
is
Defendant
Anadarko
Petroleum
Corporation's Motion to Dismiss or, Alternatively, Motion for More
Definite Statement ("Defendant's Motion to Dismiss")
No. 7).
(Docket Entry
For the reasons stated below, Defendant's motion will be
granted in part and denied in part.
I.
Factual and Procedural Background
Plaintiff Jermaine Verdin filed this action on August 30, 2016,
alleging that on or about October 31, 2015, he was employed as a
rigger
for
Petroleum
Dolphin
Services.
Corporation's
located offshore
in
manually
metal
lifting
the
While
Gulf
of
plating
aboard
Heidelberg
("Anadarko")
working
spar
Mexico,
in
he
adverse
was
Anadarko
platform,
injured while
weather
conditions.
Verdin sustained injuries to his neck, shoulder, and back.
Verdin claims that his injuries were caused by the negligence
or
gross
negligence
of
Anadarko
or
its
agents,
servants,
or
employees.
Verdin
also
claims
that
Anadarko
violated
federal
regulations regarding offshore Safety and Environmental Management
Systems (SEMS), specifically 30 C.F.R.
seeks
actual
and punitive
Verdin invokes
the
damages
jurisdiction of
250.1900, et seg.
§
as
well
this
as
attorney's
court
Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA), 43 U.S.C.
Verdin
fees.
under
Outer
the
1301, et seg.
§
Anadarko moves to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted pursuant to Rule 12(b) (6) of the Federal
Rules
of
Civil
Procedure
or,
alternatively,
moves
for
a
more
definite statement pursuant to Rules 8 and 12(e).
II.
A.
Analysis
Applicable Law
1.
Rule 12(b)(6)
A Rule 12(b) (6)
pleadings
and
is
motion tests the formal sufficiency of the
"appropriate
when
a
defendant
attacks
the
complaint because it fails to state a legally cognizable claim."
Ramming v. United States, 281 F. 3d 158, 161 (5th Cir. 2001), cert.
denied sub nom. Cloud v. United States, 122 S. Ct. 2665 (2002).
To
defeat a motion to dismiss a plaintiff must plead "enough facts to
state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face."
Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1974 (2007).
The court
generally is not to look beyond the pleadings in deciding a motion
to dismiss.
1999) .
Spivey v.
Robertson,
197 F.3d 772,
774
(5th Cir.
In addition, the court may take judicial notice of matters
-2-
of public record.
See Joseph v.
Bach
F.
n.2
2012)
App'x 173,
178
judicial notice
Stryker Corp.,
Trust,
of
(5th Cir.
matters
of
631 F.3d 777
500 F.3d 454,
&
Wasserman,
("[T]he
L.L.C.,
court may
public
record."
(citing
(5th Cir.
2011)));
Norris v.
461 n.9
(5th Cir.
2007)
487
take
Funk v.
Hearst
("[I]t is clearly
proper in deciding a 12 (b) (6)
motion to take judicial notice of
matters of public record.").
Extrinsic materials such as public
records may be attached to a motion to dismiss without converting
the motion into a motion for summary judgment.
Associates v. City of Houston,
Tex. 2011).
Maryland Manor
816 F. Supp. 2d 394, 404 n.S
(S.D.
A judicially noticed fact must be one not subject to
reasonable dispute in that it is either "(1)
[]
generally known
within the trial court's territorial jurisdiction; or
(2)
can be
accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot
reasonably be questioned."
Fed. R. Evid. 201(b).
When a party presents "matters outside the pleadings" with a
motion to dismiss,
the court has discretion to either accept or
exclude the evidence for purposes of the motion to dismiss.
McBurney v. Cuccinelli, 616 F.3d 393, 410 (4th Cir. 2010)
See
("'As is
true of practice under Rule 12(b) (6), it is well-settled that it is
within
the
district
court's
discretion
whether
to
accept
extra-pleading matter on a motion for judgment on the pleadings and
treat it as one for summary judgment or to reject it and maintain
the character of the motion as one under Rule 12(c) .'"
(quoting SC
Charles A. Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure
-3-
§ 1371
(3d ed.
2010)));
Isquith ex rel.
Isquith v.
Utilities, Inc., 847 F.2d 186, 194 n.3 (5th Cir. 1988)
Middle South
("Rule 12(b)
gives a district court 'complete discretion to determine whether or
not to accept any material beyond the pleadings that is offered in
conjunction with a Rule 12(b) (6) motion.'"
(quoting 5 C. Wright &
A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure§ 1366 (1969))).
"[i] f
.
.
However,
matters outside the pleadings are presented to and not
excluded by the court, the motion must be treated as one for summary
judgment
under
Rule
56"
and
"[a] 11
parties
must
be
given
a
reasonable opportunity to present all the material that is pertinent
to the motion."
2.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(d).
Rule 8 (a)
Rule 8(a) (2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires
"a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader
is entitled to relief."
While it is not necessary for a plaintiff
to plead specific facts, he must articulate "enough facts to state
a claim to relief that is plausible on its face."
S. Ct. at 1974.
Twombly,
127
"A pleading that offers 'labels and conclusions'
or 'a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action
will not do.'"
Ashcroft v.
Iqbal,
129 S. Ct.
(quoting Twombly, 127 S. Ct. at 1955).
1937,
1949
(2009)
In other words, "[t]hread-
bare recitals of the elements of a cause of action,
supported by
mere
establish
conclusory
plausible claim.
statements"
are
Id.
-4-
insufficient
to
a
B.
Application
Defendant seeks dismissal of Plaintiff's claims for punitive
damages, attorney's fees, and alleged violations of 30 C.F.R.
§
250
for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
Plaintiff
objects
to
the
inclusion
of
exhibits
in
support
of
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and argues that the motion should be
treated as a motion for summary judgment.
First, Plaintiff does not contest that "his claim is governed
by Louisiana law to the degree it is not inconsistent with federal
law" or that "personal injury claimants are ordinarily ineligible
to
recover
punitive
damages
and
attorneys'
fees." 1
Because
Plaintiff concedes the bases for Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, the
court need not look to the attached exhibits in order to reach its
conclusions.
Excluding that evidence,
the court concludes that
Plaintiff is not entitled to punitive damages or attorney's fees.
Second, Defendant's exhibits are all matters of public record
not subject to reasonable dispute.
As such,
the court may take
judicial notice of the facts set forth in those exhibits in order
to reach the appropriate legal conclusions.
Upon taking judicial
notice of the attached exhibits, the court concludes that Louisiana
law applies and that Plaintiff is not entitled to punitive damages
or attorney's fees.
1
Plaintiff' s Response in Opposition to Defendant Anadarko
Petroleum Corporation's Motion to Dismiss, or Alternatively 1 Motion
for More Definite Statement ("Plaintiff's Response") 1 Docket Entry
No. 12, pp. 3-4.
-5-
Finally, as Plaintiff's concession shows, treating Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss as a summary judgment motion would have the same
effect on Plaintiff's claims.
There exists no genuine dispute as
to any material fact regarding the applicable law or its effect on
Plaintiff's
claims
for
punitive
Defendant's exhibits would meet
damages
its
and
attorney's
burden under Rule
fees.
56,
and
Plaintiff's claims would be subject to summary judgment.
For these reasons,
the court concludes that
Plaintiff has
failed to state a claim upon which punitive damages or attorney's
fees may be granted.
Plaintiff's claims for those forms of relief
will be dismissed.
As to the lack of a private cause of action under 30 C.F.R.
§ 250, Plaintiff's Original Complaint does not premise an action on
the regulations.
Plaintiff cites the SEMS regulation in a para-
graph under the heading of a cause of action for "Negligence and
Gross Negligence." 2
As Plaintiff states in his Response, the cited
regulations are intended as support for his negligence claim as
evidence of Defendant's duty of care, not as a basis for a separate
cause of action. 3
Plaintiff's delineation of his claims as tort
claims is sufficiently plain to meet the standards of Rule 8(a).
Plaintiff's negligence and gross negligence claims, along with
his
premises
2
liability
Plaintiff' s
allegations,
Original Complaint,
meet
the
standards
Docket Entry No.
§ 5.7.
3
Plaintiff's Response, Docket Entry No. 12, p. 7.
-6-
1,
p.
of
4
Rule 8(a).
With respect to Plaintiff,s other claims, Defendant,s
Motion to Dismiss or for a more definite statement will therefore
be denied.
III.
Conclusions and Order
For the reasons stated above, Defendants, Motion to Dismiss
(Docket Entry No. 7) is GRANTED in part and Plaintiff 1 s claims for
punitive damages and attorney,s fees are DISMISSED with prejudice.
Defendant 1 S Motion to Dismiss paragraph 5.3 of Plaintiff 1 s Original
Complaint or, in the alternative, for a more definite statement is
DENIED.
SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on this 7th day of December, 2016.
SIM LAKE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
-7-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?