Perry v. Halliburton Energy Services, Inc.

S.D. Texas

Perry v. Halliburton Energy Services, Inc.

DecidedSeptember 26, 2025

Docket4:23-cv-04441

StatusUnknown

This text of Perry v. Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. (Perry v. Halliburton Energy Services, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Perry v. Halliburton Energy Services, Inc., (S.D. Tex. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

Southern District of Texas IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ENTERED FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS September 30, 202! HOUSTON DIVISION Nathan Ochsner, Clerk LANDON PERRY § VS : CIVIL ACTION NO. H-23-4441 HALLIBURTON ENERGY SERVICES, INC.

ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION

Pending before the Court in the above referenced proceeding is Defendant’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 32), Defendant’s Motion to Exclude (Doc. No. 33), Plaintiff's Motion to Strike (Doc. No. 35); Plaintiff’'s Renewed Motion to Remand (Doc. No. 37); Plaintiff's Two Opposed Motions to Continue (Doc. No. 39-40); and Magistrate Judge Bennett’s Memorandum and Recommendation (Doc. No. 49). Plaintiff filed Partial Objections (Doc. No. 51)to the Memorandum and Recommendation that the Court grant in party and deny in party the motion to remand. Plaintiff filed Partial Objections (Doc. No. 22) to the Memorandum and Recommendation, to which Defendant responded (Doc. No. 52). The Court has carefully reviewed, de novo, the filings, the applicable law, the Magistrate Judge’s Memorandum and Recommendation, and the objections thereto, and agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s conclusions. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff Objections (Doc. No. 36) are OVERRULED; the Memorandum and Recommendation (Doc. No. 33) is ADOPTED. It is further ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 32) is GRANTED. The Court notes that in the Memorandum and Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge noted that the Motion for Summary Judgment was not responded to and thus under our Local Rules would normally be considered unopposed (Doc. No. 49, p. 15). The Local Rules of the Southern

District of Texas state that “[f]ailure to respond to a motion will be taken as a representation of no opposition.” S. Dist. Tex. L.R. 7.4; see also Hanen L.R. 7(D). Therefore, if controlling the local rules would allow the Court to grant Defendant’s motion as it should be considered unopposed. Nevertheless, the Fifth Circuit has explained that ‘although we have endorsed the adoption of local rules that require parties to file responses to opposed motions, we have not approved the automatic grant, upon failure to comply with such rules, of motions that are dispositive of the litigation. See Johnson v. Pettiford, 442, F.3d 917, 918 (Sth Cir. 2006) (citing Johnson v. Louisiana, 757 F.2d 698, 707-09 (Sth Cir. 1985); Ramsey v. Signal Delivery Serv., 631 F.2d 1210, 1213-14 (Sth Cir. 2980)). In other words, where a party does not respond to a summary judgment motion, such failure does not permit the court to enter a “default” summary judgment. Eversley v. Mbank Dall., 843 F.2d 172, 174 (Sth Cir. 1988). This Court notes that the Magistrate Judge followed the Circuit’s dictates and performed the required review and did not enter a “default” summary judgment. Instead, he meticulously walked through and weighed the law and the evidence. Plaintiff's Renewed Motion to Remand (Doc. No. 37) is DENIED; Defendant’s Motion to Exclude (Doc. No. 33) is GRANTED; Plaintiff's Motion to Strike (Doc. No. 35) is DENIED; and Plaintiffs Opposed Motions to Continue (Doc. Nos. 39-40) are DENIED. aA SIGNED this _ _ day of September 2025. Avo] ANDREW S. HANEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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

Southern District of Texas IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ENTERED FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS September 30, 202! HOUSTON DIVISION Nathan Ochsner, Clerk LANDON PERRY § VS : CIVIL ACTION NO. H-23-4441 HALLIBURTON ENERGY SERVICES, INC.

ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION

Pending before the Court in the above referenced proceeding is Defendant’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 32), Defendant’s Motion to Exclude (Doc. No. 33), Plaintiff's Motion to Strike (Doc. No. 35); Plaintiff’'s Renewed Motion to Remand (Doc. No. 37); Plaintiff's Two Opposed Motions to Continue (Doc. No. 39-40); and Magistrate Judge Bennett’s Memorandum and Recommendation (Doc. No. 49). Plaintiff filed Partial Objections (Doc. No. 51)to the Memorandum and Recommendation that the Court grant in party and deny in party the motion to remand. Plaintiff filed Partial Objections (Doc. No. 22) to the Memorandum and Recommendation, to which Defendant responded (Doc. No. 52). The Court has carefully reviewed, de novo, the filings, the applicable law, the Magistrate Judge’s Memorandum and Recommendation, and the objections thereto, and agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s conclusions. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff Objections (Doc. No. 36) are OVERRULED; the Memorandum and Recommendation (Doc. No. 33) is ADOPTED. It is further ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 32) is GRANTED. The Court notes that in the Memorandum and Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge noted that the Motion for Summary Judgment was not responded to and thus under our Local Rules would normally be considered unopposed (Doc. No. 49, p. 15). The Local Rules of the Southern

District of Texas state that “[f]ailure to respond to a motion will be taken as a representation of no opposition.” S. Dist. Tex. L.R. 7.4; see also Hanen L.R. 7(D). Therefore, if controlling the local rules would allow the Court to grant Defendant’s motion as it should be considered unopposed. Nevertheless, the Fifth Circuit has explained that ‘although we have endorsed the adoption of local rules that require parties to file responses to opposed motions, we have not approved the automatic grant, upon failure to comply with such rules, of motions that are dispositive of the litigation. See Johnson v. Pettiford, 442, F.3d 917, 918 (Sth Cir. 2006) (citing Johnson v. Louisiana, 757 F.2d 698, 707-09 (Sth Cir. 1985); Ramsey v. Signal Delivery Serv., 631 F.2d 1210, 1213-14 (Sth Cir. 2980)). In other words, where a party does not respond to a summary judgment motion, such failure does not permit the court to enter a “default” summary judgment. Eversley v. Mbank Dall., 843 F.2d 172, 174 (Sth Cir. 1988). This Court notes that the Magistrate Judge followed the Circuit’s dictates and performed the required review and did not enter a “default” summary judgment. Instead, he meticulously walked through and weighed the law and the evidence. Plaintiff's Renewed Motion to Remand (Doc. No. 37) is DENIED; Defendant’s Motion to Exclude (Doc. No. 33) is GRANTED; Plaintiff's Motion to Strike (Doc. No. 35) is DENIED; and Plaintiffs Opposed Motions to Continue (Doc. Nos. 39-40) are DENIED. aA SIGNED this _ _ day of September 2025. Avo] ANDREW S. HANEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Perry v. Halliburton Energy Services, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/perry-v-halliburton-energy-services-inc-txsd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack