THIBODEAUX v. GLOBAL SANTA FE DRILLING COMPANY

Full title: MAURICE THIBODEAUX v. GLOBAL SANTA FE DRILLING COMPANY

Court: United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Lafayette-Opelousas Division

Date published: Mar 19, 2008

CIVIL ACTION NO. 06-1713 (W.D. La. Mar. 19, 2008)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 06-1713.

March 19, 2008

ORDER

TUCKER MELANCON, District Judge

Before the Court are Maurice Thibodeaux's ("plaintiff" or "Thibodeaux") Motion for Summary Judgment and Memorandum in Support thereof [Rec. Doc. 17] and Global Santa Fe Drilling Company's ("defendant" or "Global") Memorandum in Opposition [Rec. Doc. 26]. A motion for summary judgment shall be granted if the pleadings, depositions and affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56; Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069 (5th Cir. 1994) ( en banc). Initially, the party moving for summary judgment must demonstrate the absence of any genuine issues of material fact. When, as here, a party seeking summary judgment bears the burden of proof at trial, he must come forward with evidence which would entitle him to a directed verdict if such evidence were uncontroverted at trial. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324. If the moving party fails to carry this burden, his motion must be denied.

Plaintiff's Motion [Rec. Doc. 17] is premised entirely on his own unsupported and unsubstantiated affidavit. No other evidence is presented to the Court in support of the motion. "Conclusory allegations and unsubstantiated assertions [. . .] are not competent summary judgment evidence." Warfield v. Byron, 436 F.3d 551, 559 (5^th Cir. 2006) ( citing Freeman v. Tx. Dept. of Criminal Justice, 369 F.3d 854, 860 (5^th Cir. 2004)). As such, plaintiff failed to carry his burden of proving that no genuine issue of material fact exists.

Had plaintiff carried this initial burden, however, in its Opposition [Rec. Doc. 26], Santa Fe cites several affidavits and depositions, including the deposition of the plaintiff, which contradict the statements contained in plaintiff's affidavit. This evidence further demonstrates that material issues of fact remain unresolved in this case.

Given the paucity of evidence in favor of summary judgment and the clear showing that genuine issues of material fact remain, summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff would be inappropriate. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that plaintiff's Motion [Rec. Doc. 17] is DENIED.