Nettleton et al v. Plains Pipeline, LP et al, No. 2:2012cv01186 - Document 16 (E.D. La. 2012)

Court Description: ORDER & REASONS that Plaintiffs' 10 Motion to Remand is DENIED. FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Plains Pipeline's 12 Motion to Consolidate Cases is GRANTED. Signed by Judge Eldon E. Fallon on 7/25/12. (dno, )

Download PDF
Nettleton et al v. Plains Pipeline, LP et al Doc. 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA TERRY J. NETTLETON, SR., ET AL. VERSUS PLAINS PIPELINE, LP, ET AL. * * * * * CIVIL ACTION NO. 12-1186 SECTION "L"(4) ORDER AND REASONS The Court has pending before it Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand (Rec. Doc. 10) and Defendant Plains Pipeline’s Motion to Consolidate Cases (Rec. Doc. 12). The Court has reviewed the briefs and the applicable law, and now issues this Order and Reasons. This case arises out of the same facts as Gautier v. Plains Pipeline, LP, No. 12-1064. Like Mr. Gautier, Plaintiffs in this case own oyster bedding ground leases located near Bay St. Elaine. (Compl., Rec. Doc. 1-1 at ¶ 3). Plaintiffs allege that their leases were damaged while Defendant Crain Brothers (hired by Defendant Plains Pipeline) was performing work on the Bay St. Elaine oil pipeline. Id. at ¶ 5. Plaintiffs allege that this damage occurred as a result of Defendants’ negligence. Id. at ¶ 8. This case is similar to Gautier in all material respects. Therefore, the same reasoning applies here. This Court will follow its own previous decision in Fallon v. OXY USA, Inc., No. Civ.A. 00-2049, 2000 WL 1285397 (E.D. La. Sept. 12, 2000) (Fallon, J.). For the foregoing reasons, as well as those stated in the Order and Reasons denying Plaintiff Gautier’s motion to remand, the instant Plaintiffs’ motion to remand is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Plains Pipeline’s Motion to Consolidate Cases is GRANTED. Dockets.Justia.com New Orleans, Louisiana, this 25th day of July, 2012. _________________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.