LeJeune v. Halliburton Energy Servs.

• Decision Date: 25 April 2022
• Docket Number: Civil Action 6:21-cv-01319
• Parties: ALLEN LEJEUNE v. HALLIBURTON ENERGY SERVICES, INC., ET AL.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Louisiana

ALLEN LEJEUNE
v.
HALLIBURTON ENERGY SERVICES, INC., ET AL.

Civil Action No. 6:21-cv-01319

United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Lafayette Division

April 25, 2022

HANNA, MAGISTRATE JUDGE

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

SUMMERHAYS, JUDGE

Pending before this Court is the motion to dismiss, under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), which was filed by the defendant, Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. (Rec. Doc. 28). The motion is opposed. The motion was referred to the undersigned magistrate judge for review, report, and recommendation in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 and the standing orders of this Court. Considering the evidence, the law, and the arguments of the parties, and for the reasons fully explained below, it is recommended that the motion should be DENIED without prejudice to Halliburton's right to reurge the motion following the plaintiff's amendment of his complaint.

Background

The plaintiff, Allen Lejeune, claims that he was injured on or about January 16, 2021, while employed by Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. and working onboard the STIM STAR IV, a vessel owned and operated by Galliano Marine Service. Mr. Lejeune alleged that he injured his back when he was required to move

1

a heavy electric motor in the vessel's engine room without having been provided with the proper equipment to perform that task safely. He alleged that Galliano and Halliburton were negligent in causing his injuries; he asserted General Maritime Law and Jones Act claims; and, alternatively, he asserted a claim under the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (“LHWCA”).

Halliburton responded to the second amended complaint by filing the instant motion to dismiss.

Law and Analysis

A. The Standard for Analyzing a Rule 12(b)(6) Motion

A motion to dismiss, brought under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), tests whether the complaint states a legally cognizable claim.^[1] Such motions are viewed with disfavor and are rarely granted.^[2] When considering such a motion, a district court must limit itself to the contents of the pleadings, including any attachments thereto,^[3] accept all well-pleaded facts as true, and view the facts in a light most favorable to the

2

plaintiff.^[4] However, conclusory allegations and unwarranted deductions of fact are not accepted as true,^[5] and courts “are not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation.”^[6] To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the plaintiff must plead enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.^[7]

B. Mr. Lejeune's Request for Leave to Amend

In response to Halliburton's motion to dismiss...