Bixby et al v. KBR, Inc. et al, No. 3:2009cv00632 - Document 199 (D. Or. 2011)

Court Description: OPINION & ORDER: This court adopts the Magistrate Judge's Findings & Recommendation 192 . The Halliburton Defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction 145 is granted and their motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction 172 is denied as moot. See 5-page opinion and order attached. Signed on 7/20/2011 by Judge Marco A. Hernandez. (mr)

Download PDF

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION ROCKY BIXBY, LAWRENCE ROBERTA, SCOTT ASHBY, CHARLES ELLIS, MATTHEW HADLEY, CARLOS AVALOS, JESUS BRUNO, COLT CAMPREDON, STEPHEN FOSTER, BYRON GREER, KELLY HAFER, DENNIS JEWELL, STEPHEN MUELLER, VITO PACHECO, JOHN RYDQUIST, KEVIN STANGER, RONALD BJERKLUND, ADANROLANDO GARCIA, BRIAN HEDIN, LEWIS MARTIN, CHARLES SEAMON, RANDY KEIPER, MATT KUHNEL, DENNIS ROSGEN, AARON ST. CLAIR, KEVIN WILSON, JASON BLAIN, JAMES BORJA, DEVIN FIELDS, LESLIE ING, RICHARD LAWRENCE, JAY LOUISIANA, JAMES McGOWAN, DONALD YEARGIN, JASON ARNOLD, CHRISTOPHER WANGELIN, and MICHAEL O RIELLY, 3:09-CV-632-PK Plaintiffs, v. OPINION & ORDER KBR, INC., KELLOGG, BROWN & ROOT SERVICE, INC., KBR TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC., OVERSEAS ADMINISTRATION SERVICES, LTD., SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL, INC., HALLIBURTON COMPANY and HALLIBURTON ENERGY SERVICES, INC., Defendants. 1 - OPINION & ORDER Amanda Halter Jeffrey L. Raizner Michael P. Doyle Patrick Mason Dennis DOYLE RAIZNER, LLP One Houston Center 1221 McKinney Suite 4100 Houston, TX 77010 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Randall Jones SERPE JONES ANDREWS CALLENDER & BELL PLLC Three Allen Center 333 Clay Street, Suite 3485 Houston, TX 77002 Raymond B. Biagini Kurt Hamrock Lora A. Brzezynski MCKENNA LONG & ADLRIDGE LLP 1900 E. Street NW Washington, DC 20006 Chanler A. Langham Geoffrey L. Harrison J. Hoke Peacock , III Jordan W. Connors SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P. 1000 Louisiana Street Suite 5100 Houston, TX 77002 Jeffrey S. Eden SCHWABE WILLIAMSON & WYATT, PC 1600-1900 Pacwest Center 1211 SW Fifth Avenue Portland, OR 97204 Attorneys for Defendants 2 - OPINION & ORDER HERNANDEZ, District Judge: The Honorable Paul Papak referred a Findings and Recommendation ( F & R ) (doc. #192) to me on June 16, 2011. The F&R recommends that defendants Halliburton Company and Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. s ( Halliburton Defendants ) motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction (doc. #145) be granted and their motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction (doc. #172) be denied as moot. STANDARDS The court is generally required to make a de novo determination of those portions of the Magistrate Judge s Findings and Recommendation to which objections are made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). For those portions of the Findings and Recommendation to which the parties do not object, the court is relieved of its obligation to review the record de novo as to those portions of the Findings and Recommendation. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121. In performing its review, the district court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the Findings and Recommendation, opt to receive further evidence, or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). DISCUSSION On June 30, 2011, co-defendants KBR, Inc., Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc., KBR Technical Services, Inc., Overseas Administration Services, Ltd., and Service Employees International, Inc. ( KBR Defendants ) and the Halliburton Defendants (collectively, Defendants ) filed timely objections to the Magistrate Judge s F & R. Defendants do not object to the Magistrate Judge s legal recommendation that the Halliburton Defendants motion to 3 - OPINION & ORDER dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction be granted or that the Halliburton Defendants motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction be denied as moot. Defendants, however, object to certain facts in the Underlying Facts section of the F & R as irrelevant to the Magistrate Judge s determination granting the Halliburton Defendants motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Defendants do not cite with any particularity the facts to which they object in the F & R. They, however, seek clarifying statements that the facts in the Underlying Facts section of the F & R are plaintiffs version of the facts and are accepted as true for the sole purpose of deciding Halliburton s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Defendants contend that their request for clarification is proper because plaintiffs and parties in other cases may seek to portray the facts in the Underlying Facts section of the F & R on the merits, which they assert is inaccurate. Plaintiffs respond that further review of the Magistrate Judge s findings would prolong the life of this case, that Defendants objections are not worthy of review, that it is not for this court to declare how other courts are to interpret the Magistrate Judge s findings, and that the editing changes sought by Defendants undermine the purpose of the review process. I have carefully considered Defendants objections and conclude that they do not provide a basis to modify the F & R. I have also reviewed the pertinent portions of the record de novo and find no error in the Magistrate Judge's F & R. Defendants objections do not affect and have no relevance to the Magistrate Judge s ultimate recommendation. Furthermore, the facts to which Defendants object simply provide background to aid the reader in framing and understanding the dispute. Accordingly, Defendants objections are overruled. 4 - OPINION & ORDER CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, this court adopts the Magistrate Judge s F & R (doc. #192). The Halliburton Defendants motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction (doc. #145) is granted and their motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction (doc. #172) is denied as moot. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated this 20th day of July, 2011. /s/ Marco A. Hernandez Marco A. Hernandez United States District Judge 5 - OPINION & ORDER

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.