Vo et al v. Chevron USA Inc et al, No. 2:2012cv01341 - Document 63 (E.D. La. 2014)

Court Description: ORDER and REASONS granting 61 Motion for Entry of Judgment under Rule 54(b), as stated within document. Signed by Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt on 1/22/2014. (Reference: 13-1794)(cbs)

Download PDF
Vo et al v. Chevron USA Inc et al Doc. 63 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA ANH NGOC VO, ET AL CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO. 12-1341 c/w 13-1794 CHEVRON U.S.A., INC., ET AL SECTION "N" (3) ORDER AND REASONS Local Rule 7.5 of the Eastern District of Louisiana requires that a memorandum in opposition to a motion be filed eight days prior to the noticed submission date. No memorandum in opposition to the following motion, noticed for submission on January 22, 2014, was filed: “Motion for Entry of Rule 54(b) Final Judgment (Rec. Doc. 61), filed by Chevron U.S.A. Inc. and Chevron Pipeline Company. Further, the Court finds that the motion has merit. "Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) permits a district court to enter separate final judgment on any claim or counterclaim, after making 'an express determination that there is no just reason for delay.' " Reiter v. Cooper, 507 U.S. 258, 265 (1993) (quoting Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Mackey, 351 U.S. 427 (1956)). "This power is largely discretionary...to be exercised in light of 'judicial administrative interests as well as the equities involved,' and giving due weight to 'the historic federal policy against piecemeal appeals.' " Id. (quoting Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. General Electric Co., 446 U.S. 1, 10 (1980)) (citations and internal quotations omitted); see also Ackerman v. F.D.I.C., 973 F.2d 1221, 1225 (5th Cir. 1992). Dockets.Justia.com In this case, the Court finds that there is no just reason for delay. No party has come forward with any evidence disputing Chevron’s evidence that it did not own, operate, or control any pipelines where the plaintiffs’ vessel allegedly allided with a submerged pipeline. Moreover, no party opposed the granting of summary judgment dismissing the plaintiffs’ against the Chevron defendants. Thus, it is unlikely that granting final judgment to Chevron now will result in piecemeal appeals. Accordingly; IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for Entry of Rule 54(b) Final Judgment (Rec. Doc. 61), filed by Chevron U.S.A. Inc. and Chevron Pipeline Company, is hereby GRANTED. New Orleans, Louisiana, this 22nd day of January, 2014. ____________________________________ KURT D. ENGELHARDT 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.