Baker Hughes Oilfield Operations, Inc., v. Packers Plus Energy Services Inc et al

Filing 67

OPINION AND ORDER, denying 55 MOTION to Dismiss 46 Counterclaim or Alternatively, Motion to Strike Defendants' Counterclaims (Signed by Judge Melinda Harmon) Parties notified.(jdav, 4)

Download PDF
United States District Court Southern District of Texas ENTERED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION BAKER HUGHES OILFIELD OPERATIONS § LLC, § § Plaintiff, § VS. § § PACKERS PLUS ENERGY SERVICES INC, § et al, § § Defendants. § March 12, 2018 David J. Bradley, Clerk CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:17-CV-1422 OPINION AND ORDER Pending before the Court in the above-referenced cause, and under FED. R. CIV. P. 7(a), 12(b), and 12(f), is Plaintiff Baker Hughes Oilfield Operations LLC’s (“Baker Hughes”) Motion to Dismiss, or Alternatively Motion to Strike Defendant’s Counterclaims, Doc. 55, and Defendants Packers Plus Energy Services Inc. and Packers Plus Energy Services (USA) Inc.’s (together, “Packers Plus”) Response, Doc. 64. Having considered the Motions, the facts in the record, and the applicable law, the Court concludes that Baker Hughes’ Motion should be denied. On January 24, 2017, Packers filed a stand-alone document labeled Packers Plus’s Counterclaims against Baker Hughes. Doc. 46. Subsequently, Baker Hughes filed its motion to strike. Doc. 55. On February 23, 2018, the Court granted leave to Baker Hughes to file its First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). Docs. 58, 59. Subsequently, Packers Plus answered the FAC, attaching affirmative defenses and counterclaims, Doc. 62, and that same day it also filed a Response to Baker Hughes’s Motion. Doc. 64 Baker Hughes asserts that Packers Plus cannot assert its counterclaim as a “standalone document.” Doc. 55 (citing FED. R. CIV. P. 7 and 13(a)). The Court agrees. But at the time of the 1/2 Motion, Packers Plus had not filed its Answer. And in answering the FAC, Packers Plus incorporated its counterclaims into its Answer, rendering Baker Hughes’s assertion moot. Doc. 62 at 10–27. Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS that Baker Hughes’s Motion to Dismiss, or Alternatively Motion to Strike Defendant’s Counterclaims, Doc. 55, is DENIED. SIGNED at Houston, Texas, this 12th day of March, 2018. ___________________________________ MELINDA HARMON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2/2

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?