Petroleum Helicopters Inc v. Apical Industries Inc et al
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
|Date Filed||#||Document Text|
|May 27, 2015
SEVERANCE ORDER : It is hereby Ordered that the claims Petroleum Helicopters Inc, asserts against Rolls-Royce Corporation in the above captioned action are hereby severed assigned cause number 6:15cv1767 of this Court and entitled Petroleum Helicopte rs Inc v. Rolls-Royce Corporation. By separate Order, that action will be transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, in accord with the Fifth Circuit's Mandate. Signed by Judge Rebecca F Doherty on 5/27/15. (crt,Kennedy, T)
|May 7, 2014
MEMORANDUM RULING For the foregoing reasons, and for the additional reasons set forth in the well-reasoned and meticulously cited Report and Recommendations 132 , IT IS ORDERED that the "Renewed 106 Motion to Transfer is DENIED. Signed by Judge Rebecca F Doherty on 5/6/14. (crt,Guidry, C)
|September 9, 2013
MEMORANDUM RULING re 69 Amended MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Apical Industries Inc, 58 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Apical Industries Inc. Considering the foregoing, the "Motion for P artial Summary Judgment" [Doc. 58] filed by Apical is DENIED AS MOOT, and the "Amended Motion for Partial Summary Judgment" [Doc. 69] filed by Apical is GRANTED in its entirety, and PHI's claims against Apical under the LPLA are DENIED AND DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Rebecca F Doherty on 9/9/13. (crt,Kennedy, T)
|May 23, 2013
MEMORANDUM RULING denying 18 Motion to Remand. The defendants removed this action from state court, contending that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold, that the plaintiff is diverse in citizenship from defendants Apical and Rolls Royce, that the plaintiff is not diverse in citizenship from defendant OHS, and that the citizenship of OHS must bedisregarded because OHS was improperly joined as a defendant in the suit. PHIsought to remand the action, arguing that there is a possibility that PHI can recover from OHS with regard to the claim set forth in its amended complaint, and therefore arguing that OHS was not improperly joined. The defendants satisfied their burden of proving that the parties are diverse in ci tizenship and that OHS was improperly joined. The claim asserted against OHS in PHIs original petition is a maritime tort claim, sounding in negligence, for which PHI seeks to recover economic damages. The defendants proved that, as a matter of law, the helicopter and its float system are a single product. Accordingly, the East River doctrine precludes PHI from recovering against OHS on the negligence claim. Signed by Magistrate Judge Patrick J Hanna on 5/23/13. (crt,Kennedy, T)
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system.
A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Louisiana Western District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
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?