Cortez v. Lamorak Insurance Company et al, No. 2:2020cv02389 - Document 1013 (E.D. La. 2022)
Court Description: ORDER AND REASONS denying 1002 Motion for Reconsideration re 886 Order and Reasons, 890 Order and Reasons. Any motion hereafter filed in violation of the Court's order closing motion practice will be denied as untimely. Signed by Judge Sarah S. Vance on 5/12/2022. (mm)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Cortez v. Lamorak Insurance Company et al Doc. 1013 Case 2:20-cv-02389-SSV-JVM Document 1013 Filed 05/12/22 Page 1 of 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA CALLEN J. CORTEZ CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO. 20-2389 LAMORAK INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL. SECTION “R” (1) ORDER AND REASONS On May 2, 2022, plaintiff Callen Cortez, and defendants BayerCropScience, Inc. and Union Carbide Corporation filed a motion 1 for clarification or, in the alternative, reconsideration, of the Court’s April 4, 2022 Order and Reasons granting in part and denying in part Huntington Ingalls, Inc.’s (“Avondale”) motion for summary judgment. 2 They seek a clarification and/or ruling that the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (“LHWCA”) does not preempt plaintiff’s claims against Avondale arising out of his brother Mitchell Cortez’s employment with Avondale. Defendants Foster Wheeler, LLC, General Electric Company, and ViacomCBS, Inc. joined in the motion. 3 1 2 3 R. Doc. 1002. R. Doc. 886. R. Doc. 1006. Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:20-cv-02389-SSV-JVM Document 1013 Filed 05/12/22 Page 2 of 3 This motion was untimely filed, in violation of the Court’s April 27, 2022 order, which indicated that all expired deadlines remain expired, and that “pleadings, discovery, and all motion practice remain closed.”4 The Court reiterated at the May 12, 2022 status conference that no further motions may be filed. The Court will not entertain motions filed in violation of its orders. To the extent there was any confusion about the meaning of the Court’s order closing motion practice before today’s status conference, the Court rules as follows. The Court’s April 4, 2022 order on Avondale’s motion for summary judgment does not require clarification. The Court clearly stated that it “DISMISSES all of plaintiff’s claims against Avondale, except his take-homeexposure claims brought against Avondale in its capacity as Daniel Cortez’s employer.”5 To the extent movants seek reconsideration of this holding to preserve claims arising from Mitchell Cortez’s employment with Avondale, the motion is denied. There is no error in the Court’s dismissal of those claims. See Order & Reasons at 15, Sentilles v. Huntington Ingalls, Inc., No. 21-958 (E.D. La. Apr. 22, 2022) (Ashe, J.). 4 5 R. Doc. 995 at 5 (emphasis added). R. Doc. 886 at 35. 2 Case 2:20-cv-02389-SSV-JVM Document 1013 Filed 05/12/22 Page 3 of 3 The motion for clarification and/or reconsideration 6 is DENIED. Any motion hereafter filed in violation of the Court’s order closing motion practice will be denied as untimely. 12th day of May, 2022. New Orleans, Louisiana, this _____ _____________________ SARAH S. VANCE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 6 R. Doc. 1002. 3
]]>
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.
