119 F.R.D. 26 (E.D.Tex. 1988), C. A. B-87-0510-CA, Port Drum Co. v. Umphrey

Docket Nº:Civ. A. B-87-0510-CA.
Citation:119 F.R.D. 26
Opinion Judge:JOE J. FISHER, District Judge.
Party Name:PORT DRUM COMPANY v. Walter UMPHREY and Kurt B. Chacon.
Attorney:Marian S. Rosen, Houston, Tex., for plaintiff. Russell Serafin, Galveston, Tex., for defendants.
Case Date:January 29, 1988
Court:United States District Courts, 5th Circuit, Eastern District of Texas
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 26

119 F.R.D. 26 (E.D.Tex. 1988)

PORT DRUM COMPANY

v.

Walter UMPHREY and Kurt B. Chacon.

Civ. A. No. B-87-0510-CA.

United States District Court, E.D. Texas, Beaumont Division.

January 29, 1988

Judgment affirmed Aug. 16, 1988.

Employer that was not party to suit brought on behalf of one of its employees against chemical manufacturers brought action against attorneys who filed that action, claiming that it was frivolous and that it had resulted in several of the manufacturers refusing to do business with employer. On motion to dismiss and for sanctions, the District Court, Joe J. Fisher, J., held that: (1) Rule 11 does not constitute grant of jurisdiction; (2) Rule 11 does not satisfy requirements of federal question jurisdiction; but (3) imposition of sanctions was not appropriate.

Motion to dismiss granted, motion for sanctions denied.

Marian S. Rosen, Houston, Tex., for plaintiff.

Page 27

Russell Serafin, Galveston, Tex., for defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND FINAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL

JOE J. FISHER, District Judge.

This matter came before the Court on a Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) and for Sanctions pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 11. After careful consideration of the Motion and Brief in Support of the Motion to Dismiss and For Sanctions, the Plaintiff's response thereto and the pleadings, we find that this Court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter of this case and dismiss accordingly.

BACKGROUND

The case sub judice arises out of a previous lawsuit wherein the Defendants, Walter Umphrey and Kurt B. Chacon, both duly licensed attorneys, represented the Estate of Jimmy Sterling Smith (hereinafter the Estate). The decedent had been an employee of Port Drum Company (hereinafter Port Drum). Mr. Smith's responsibilities included cleaning out used chemical drums. It was exposure to the chemical residue in the drums which lead to Mr. Smith's unfortunate demise and constituted the basis of the lawsuit brought by his estate. In short, the Estate sued the manufacturers of the various chemicals alleging that they were ultimately responsible for Mr. Smith's death. Port Drum was never made a party to the lawsuit.

However, Port Drum alleges that the lawsuit brought by the Estate was completely without merit and consequently should be found frivolous. For purposes of deciding this motion, the Court will treat the Plaintiff's allegations as though true and proceed with the analysis under the assumption that the Estate's case was frivolous.

Consequently, Port Drum alleges, as a result of the actions of Walter Umphrey and Kurt B. Chacon, several...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP