Skip to content.
About GPO   |   Newsroom/Media   |   Congressional Relations   |   Inspector General   |   Careers   |   Contact   |   askGPO   |   Help  
 

  FDsys > More Information
(Search string is required)
 

07-2832 - Bishop et al v. Shell Oil Company et al


Download Files

Metadata

Document in Context
07-2832 - Bishop et al v. Shell Oil Company et al
January 3, 2008
PDF | More
ORDER AND REASONS re Defendant Murphy Oil USA, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Original Complaint in Part Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for Failure to State a Claim Upon Which Relief Can Be Granted, and Alternative Motion for More Definitive Statement Pursuant to Fed R. Civ. P. 12(e) Based on Plaintiffs Failure to Plead Fraud With Particularity Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b). (Rec. Doc. No. 17). Signed by Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt on 1/3/08. (tbl)
May 16, 2008
PDF | More
ORDER and REASONS - IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs' motion to dismiss 57 is GRANTED. Accordingly, Plaintiffs fraud claims against all Defendants and Plaintiffs' exemplary damages claims against Defendants Shell Oil Company, Shell Company L.P., and Marathon Oil Company are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. This ruling renders Murphy Oil's motion to dismiss 39 MOOT in its entirety. The motion to dismiss filed by the Shell defendants, Marathon Oil, and El Paso Energy 45 is rendered MOOT as to the Shell defendants and Marathon Oil and as to the fraud claims asserted against El Paso Energy. That motion to dismiss 45 is GRANTED, however, as to Plaintiffs' exemplary damages claim against El Paso Energy. The motion is dismiss filed by Radiator Specialty 32 is rendered MOOT as to Plaintiffs' fraud claims, but GRANTED as to Plaintiffs' exemplary damages claims. The dismissal rulings as to Plaintiffs' exemplary damages claims against Defendants Radiator Specialty and El Paso Energy, however, are WITHOUT PREJUDICE to Plaintiffs' right to amend their complaint in accordance with this Order and Reasons. Signed by Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt on 5/16/08. (cab)