Hammond v. Weatherford U.S., L.P.

D. Montana

Hammond v. Weatherford U.S., L.P.

DecidedJuly 6, 2022

Docket1:20-cv-00066

StatusUnknown

This text of Hammond v. Weatherford U.S., L.P. (Hammond v. Weatherford U.S., L.P.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Montana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hammond v. Weatherford U.S., L.P., (D. Mont. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA BILLINGS DIVISION KEITH HAMMOND, ) CV-20-66-BLG-SPW Plaintiff, VS. ORDER WEATHORFORD U.S., L.P., and ANDREW E. NETZ, ) Defendants.

Before the Court is Defendants Weatherford U.S., L.P.’s (“Weatherford”) and Andrew Netz’s (collectively “Defendants”) Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, filed June 10, 2022. (Doc. 31). Plaintiff Keith Hammond responded to the motion

on July 6, 2022. (Doc. 36). Defendants assert Andrew Netz was an employee of Weatherford and, at all times relevant, acted within the course and scope of his employment. (Doc. 32 at 7). Under Mont. Code Ann. § 28-10-702, a corporate agent cannot be held personally liable for acts undertaken in the course of employment unless “the agent was personally negligent or . . . the agent’s actions were tortious in nature.” Crystal Springs Trout Co. v. First State Bank of Froid, 732 P.2d 819, 823 (Mont. 1987). Defendants claim there are no facts showing that Netz was personally negligent or that his actions were tortious in nature. Maus, Netz cannot be held personally liable

for Plaintiff's injuries and Netz should be dismissed from this case. (/d. at 7). Plaintiff does not oppose the motion. (Doc. 36 at 3). Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 31) is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in favor of Defendant Andrew Netz and dismiss him from this case.

DATED this day of July, 2022.

SUSAN P. WATTERS U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA BILLINGS DIVISION KEITH HAMMOND, ) CV-20-66-BLG-SPW Plaintiff, VS. ORDER WEATHORFORD U.S., L.P., and ANDREW E. NETZ, ) Defendants.

Before the Court is Defendants Weatherford U.S., L.P.’s (“Weatherford”) and Andrew Netz’s (collectively “Defendants”) Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, filed June 10, 2022. (Doc. 31). Plaintiff Keith Hammond responded to the motion

on July 6, 2022. (Doc. 36). Defendants assert Andrew Netz was an employee of Weatherford and, at all times relevant, acted within the course and scope of his employment. (Doc. 32 at 7). Under Mont. Code Ann. § 28-10-702, a corporate agent cannot be held personally liable for acts undertaken in the course of employment unless “the agent was personally negligent or . . . the agent’s actions were tortious in nature.” Crystal Springs Trout Co. v. First State Bank of Froid, 732 P.2d 819, 823 (Mont. 1987). Defendants claim there are no facts showing that Netz was personally negligent or that his actions were tortious in nature. Maus, Netz cannot be held personally liable

for Plaintiff's injuries and Netz should be dismissed from this case. (/d. at 7). Plaintiff does not oppose the motion. (Doc. 36 at 3). Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 31) is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in favor of Defendant Andrew Netz and dismiss him from this case.

DATED this day of July, 2022.

SUSAN P. WATTERS U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Hammond v. Weatherford U.S., L.P., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hammond-v-weatherford-us-lp-mtd-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack