From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sand Storage, LLC v. Trican Well Serv., L.P.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION
Dec 17, 2014
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:13-CV-00303 (S.D. Tex. Dec. 17, 2014)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:13-CV-00303

12-17-2014

SAND STORAGE, LLC, Plaintiff, v. TRICAN WELL SERVICE, L.P., et al, Defendants.


ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION ON THE PARTIES' DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS

On October 27, 2014, United States Magistrate Judge Jason B. Libby issued his "Memorandum and Recommendation on the Parties' Dispositive Motions" (D.E. 137). The parties were provided proper notice of, and opportunity to object to, the Magistrate Judge's Memorandum and Recommendation. FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); General Order No. 2002-13. No objections have been filed.

When no timely objection to a magistrate judge's memorandum and recommendation is filed, the district court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record and accept the magistrate judge's memorandum and recommendation. Guillory v. PPG Industries, Inc., 434 F.3d 303, 308 (5th Cir. 2005) (citing Douglass v. United Services Auto Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1420 (5th Cir. 1996)).

Having reviewed the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth in the Magistrate Judge's Memorandum and Recommendation (D.E. 137), and all other relevant documents in the record, and finding no clear error, the Court ADOPTS as its own the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, the Court:

• GRANTS Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion to Dismiss (Plaintiff's) Tort Claims Without Prejudice (D.E. 89) and DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff's claims for wrongful termination of the contract as a result of dishonest motive and breach of the implied covenants of the common law duties of good faith and fair dealing and honest and forthright performance;



• GRANTS IN PART Plaintiff's Re-Stated Consolidated Motions for Partial Summary Judgment and Related Dispositive Motions (D.E. 90) and DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE Trican's claims regarding (1) delays in opening the silos, (2) damages arising from silo opening delays; and (3) delivering the incorrect grade of sand on December 14, 2011 and January 8, 2012. The Court DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE Trican's claims for promissory estoppel and negligent misrepresentation; and



• GRANTS IN PART Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment (D.E. 91) and DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE Sand Storage's claim based on a duty of good faith and fair dealing separate from its breach of contract claim.
In all other respects not set out above, the motions are DENIED.

ORDERED this 17th day of December, 2014.

/s/_________

NELVA GONZALES RAMOS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Sand Storage, LLC v. Trican Well Serv., L.P.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION
Dec 17, 2014
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:13-CV-00303 (S.D. Tex. Dec. 17, 2014)
Case details for

Sand Storage, LLC v. Trican Well Serv., L.P.

Case Details

Full title:SAND STORAGE, LLC, Plaintiff, v. TRICAN WELL SERVICE, L.P., et al…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION

Date published: Dec 17, 2014

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:13-CV-00303 (S.D. Tex. Dec. 17, 2014)

Citing Cases

Lane Constr. Corp. v. Hayward Baker, Inc.

The Court notes, however, that the cases cited in the Defendant's filings are procedurally different than the…