Case CSS Doc 1265 Filed 03/21/17 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Transcription

1 Case CSS Doc 1265 Filed 03/21/17 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE In re: Paragon Offshore plc., et al., Debtors. Chapter 11 Case No (CSS (Jointly Administered Hearing Date: April 28, 2017 at 11:00 a.m. EDT Objection Deadline: April 7, 2017 at 4:00 p.m. MOTION OF MICHAEL EAGLIN FOR RELIEF FROM THE AUTOMATIC STAY PURSUANT TO 11 U.S.C. 362(D Michael Eaglin ( Movant, by his attorneys Goldstein & McClintock LLLP, hereby moves this Court (the Motion, pursuant to section 362(d of title 11 of the United States Code, 11 U.S.C. 101 et seq. (the Bankruptcy Code, Rule 4001 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (the Bankruptcy Rules, and Rule of the Local Rules for the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (the Local Rules, for entry of an order granting relief from the automatic stay to allow certain state court litigation to proceed in the District Court of Harris County, Texas. In support of this Motion, the Movant respectfully states as follows: JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. This Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C This matter is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 157(b(2(G. Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C and The statutory bases for the relief requested herein are section 362 of the Bankruptcy Code, Bankruptcy Rule 4001, and Local Bankruptcy Rule

2 Case CSS Doc 1265 Filed 03/21/17 Page 2 of 6 BACKGROUND 3. On February 14, 2016 (the Petition Date, Paragon Offshore plc. ( Paragon, along with numerous subsidiaries, including Paragon Offshore Drilling LLC ( Offshore and collectively with Paragon, the Defendants, each filed a voluntary petition for relief under chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code (the Chapter 11 Cases. 4. Movant filed a lawsuit on or about February 8, 2016 in the District Court of Harris County, Texas (the State Court Litigation, against the Defendant and others 1 due to personal injuries sustained when an unsecured beam fell on the Movant while he was working on a vessel owned, operated, chartered, and/or managed by the Defendants. 5. The State Court Litigation is currently stayed due to the filing of the Bankruptcy Cases. 6. Upon information and belief, the Defendants are covered by insurance for any amounts they may be liable to the Movant for, in the event the Movant is successful in the State Court Litigation. 7. Movant files this Motion requesting that the Court lift the automatic stay to: (a allow for the prosecution to judgment of the State Court Litigation against the Defendants, and any other relevant Debtor, to the extent further information becomes available; (b permit Movant to liquidate and satisfy such judgment or other resolution granted, if any, from applicable insurance coverage available to the Debtors, to the extent insurance is available; and (c to the extent that insurance proceeds are unavailable, or insufficient, Movant will return to this Court for disposition of his claim. 1 The Defendants were created out of a spin-off from Noble Corporation, one of the listed defendants in the State Court Litigation , v. 1

3 Case CSS Doc 1265 Filed 03/21/17 Page 3 of 6 ARGUMENT 8. Section 362(d of the Bankruptcy Code provides, in relevant part: 11 U.S.C. 362(d. On request of a party in interest and after notice and a hearing, the court shall grant relief from the stay provided under subsection (a of this section, such as by terminating, annulling, modifying, or conditioning such stay for cause 9. The Bankruptcy Code does not define cause, but rather, it is a discretionary matter to be determined on a case by case basis. In re Rexene Prods. Co., 141 B.R. 574, 576 (Bankr. D. Del (internal citations and quotations omitted. Cause is a flexible concept and courts often conduct a fact intensive, case-by-case balancing test, examining the totality of the circumstances to determine whether sufficient cause exists to lift the stay. In re SCO Group, Inc., 395 B.R. 852, 856 (Bankr. D. Del Where parties seek to proceed in another tribunal, it will often be more appropriate to permit proceedings to continue in their place of origin, when no great prejudice to the bankruptcy estate would result, in order to leave the parties to their chosen forum and to relieve the bankruptcy court from any duties that may be handled elsewhere. In re Rexene Prods. Co., 141 B.R. at 576 (quoting H.R. Rep. No. 595, 95 th Cong. 1 st Sess. 341 ( Further, where the state court claim is one covered by insurance or indemnity, the court should permit the action to move forward in the chosen forum, since hardship to the debtor is likely to be outweighed by hardship to the plaintiff. In re McGraw, 18 B.R. 140, 142 (Bankr. N.D. Wis. 1982, (citing 2 Collier on Bankruptcy (3. Even where insurance does not pay for the costs of defense of a civil action, the equities may still weigh in favor of lifting the stay. Id. Debtor-defendants suffer little prejudice when they are sued by plaintiffs who seek nothing more than declarations of liability that can serve as predicate for a recovery against , v. 1

4 Case CSS Doc 1265 Filed 03/21/17 Page 4 of 6 insurers, sureties or guarantors. Int l Business Machines v. Fernstrom Storage and Van Co. (In re Fernstrom Storage and Van Co., 938 F.2d 731, 736 (7 th Cir The presence of insurance allows the bankruptcy court to find that permitting the civil action to move forward in the state forum would not jeopardize the bankruptcy estate because financial responsibility for the defense of the litigation may be borne by the insurance company. Holtkamp v. Littlefield (In re Holtkamp, 669 F.2d 505, (7th Cir Courts balance the costs and benefits of lifting the stay when litigation is pending in another forum by weighing three factors: (1 the potential prejudice to the debtor or the bankruptcy estate from allowing the non-bankruptcy litigation to continue; (2 the relative hardship to the debtor and to the party seeking relief; and (3 the movant s probability of prevailing on the merits in the litigation. In re SCO Group, Inc., 395 B.R. at 857. Here, the facts weigh in the Movant s favor under all three prongs. I. The Debtors will Not be Prejudiced if the Automatic Stay is Lifted 12. With respect to the first of the SCO Group factors, the Defendants and the other Debtors will not be prejudiced if the State Court Litigation is allowed to move forward. If the alleged liability is covered by applicable insurance policies, as the Movant believes is the case, there is virtually no prejudice to the Defendants or the other Debtors. However, even if the Movant s claims, or the defenses thereof, are not covered by insurance, allowing the State Court Litigation to move forward will permit the Movant to liquidate his claim, which will assist the Debtors bankruptcy proceedings and is necessary in any event since the Bankruptcy Court lacks authority to try personal injury claims. See 28 U.S.C. 157(b( , v. 1

5 Case CSS Doc 1265 Filed 03/21/17 Page 5 of 6 II. The Hardship to the Movant Significantly Outweighs any Harm to the Debtors 13. The second factor compares the relative hardship to the debtor and to the party seeking relief. As discussed, the hardship to the Debtors will be minimal, if not non-existent (and in fact the relief sought actually may be beneficial. On the other hand, the Movant will face substantial hardship if the stay is not lifted. The Movant has a personal injury claim against the Debtors, and has the right to have this matter litigated to judgment. He should not be required to litigate his claim in the Delaware Bankruptcy Court, with its corresponding substantial costs, especially considering the Bankruptcy Court has no authority to try personal injury claims in front of a jury, as is the Movant s right. III. The Movant Has a High Likelihood of Prevailing on the Merits 42. Finally, the third factor involving the likelihood of success on the merits can be satisfied with a showing of even a slight probability of success on the merits. In re Continental Airlines, Inc., 152 B.R. 420, 426 (D. Del The Movant has a strong personal injury claim, and should be allowed to proceed in the state court. While the case is in its initial stages, the Movant has a probability of success on the merits, as outlined in the Complaint, attached hereto as Exhibit A. 14. The balance of the hardships, coupled with the status of the appeal and the bettersuited forum of the State Court all weigh in favor of lifting the automatic stay and allowing the State Court Litigation to proceed in the State Court. NOTICE 15. Notice of this Motion has been provided to: (i counsel for the Debtors; (ii counsel for the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors; (iii counsel for the lenders; , v. 1

6 Case CSS Doc 1265 Filed 03/21/17 Page 6 of 6 (iv the Office of the United States Trustee; and (v all parties requesting notices pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule The Movant submits that no other or further notice need be provided. WHEREFORE, the Movant respectfully requests the entry of an order: (a lifting the automatic stay for cause to allow the State Court Litigation to continue through to judgment or other resolution; (b permitting Movant to liquidate and satisfy such judgment or other resolution granted, if any, from applicable insurance coverage available to the Debtors, to the extent insurance is available; (c directing that relief from the automatic stay be effective immediately upon entry of an order granting this motion and that the 14 day stay provided in Bankruptcy Rule 4001(a(3 not apply; and (d granting such other and further relief as the Court deems appropriate. Dated: March 21, 2017 Respectfully submitted, GOLDSTEIN & MCCLINTOCK LLLP By: /s/ Maria Aprile Sawczuk Maria Aprile Sawczuk (DE Bar # N. Orange Street, Suite 7380 Wilmington, DE Telephone: ( Facsimile: ( Counsel for Michael Eaglin , v. 1

7 Case CSS Doc Filed 03/21/17 Page 1 of 12 EXHIBIT A

8 CAUSE NO. Michael Eaglin, IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF Plaintiff, v. HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS Noble Drilling Services Inc., Noble Drilling Corporation, Noble Corporation, Shell Oil Company; and Shell Offshore Inc. Defendants. JUDICIAL DISTRICT Plaintiff s Original Petition Plaintiff Michael Eaglin files this Original Petition complaining of Noble Drilling Services Inc., Noble Drilling Corporation, Noble Corporation, Shell Oil Company and Shell Offshore Inc. (collectively as Defendants and will respectfully show the Court that: I. Jurisdiction 1. This Court has jurisdiction under the Savings to Suitors clause as Plaintiff is a seaman under the Jones Act (46 U.S.C See 28 U.S.C Additionally, it is well-settled that this Jones Act case is not removable. Lackey v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 990 F.2d 202, 207 (5th Cir Further, a Defendant who is a citizen of the forum may not remove on the basis of diversity jurisdiction, often referred to as the forum defendant rule. See 28 U.S.C. 1441(b; See also In re 1994 Exxon Chemical Fire, 558 F.3d 378 (5th Cir Case CSS Doc Filed 03/21/17 Page 2 of 12 2/8/2016 3:03:12 PM Chris Daniel - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No By: Wanda Chambers Filed: 2/8/2016 3:03:12 PM

9 Case CSS Doc Filed 03/21/17 Page 3 of 12 II. Venue 2. Venue is proper in this County pursuant to Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Section (c(1 because at least one Defendant s principal office is located in this County. III. Discovery Level 3. Discovery in this matter may be conducted under Level 2 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. IV. Parties 4. Plaintiff is a Jones Act Seaman. 5. Defendant NOBLE DRILLING SERVICES INC. is a corporation with a principle place of business in Texas. It may be served with process by and through its registered agent for service: CT Corporation System 350 N. St. Paul St., Ste Dallas, Texas Defendant NOBLE DRILLING CORPORATION is a corporation with a principle place of business in Texas. It may be served with process by and through its registered agent for service: CT Corporation System 350 N. St. Paul St., Ste Dallas, Texas Defendant NOBLE CORPORATION is a corporation with a principle place of business in Texas. It may be served with process by and through its registered agent for service: CT Corporation System 350 N. St. Paul St., Ste Dallas, Texas

10 Case CSS Doc Filed 03/21/17 Page 4 of Defendant SHELL OIL COMPANY is a corporation with its principal place of business in Harris County, Texas. It may be served with process by and through its registered agent for service: CT Corporation System 1999 Bryan St., Suite 900, Dallas, Texas Defendant SHELL OFFSHORE INC. is a corporation with its principal place of business in Harris County, Texas. It may be served with process by and through its registered agent for service: CT Corporation System, 1999 Bryan St., Suite 900, Dallas, Texas V. Nature of Action 10. This lawsuit is necessary as a result of personal injuries that Plaintiff received on or about August 25, On or about these dates, Plaintiff was working for Noble Defendants aboard the GLOBETROTTER II drillship which was owned, operated and/or managed by Defendants. While the vessel was deployed on navigable waters, and while Plaintiff, as a member of its crew, was contributing to and aiding such vessel to accomplish its mission, Plaintiff sustained serious injuries to his head, ribs, spine, shoulder, and numerous internal injuries including spleen laceration and other parts of his body when an unsecured beam fell, weighing several metric tons, suddenly fell on top of him. In addition to the severe injuries that were sustained the Defendants failed to properly render medical aid and caused Plaintiff to go without proper medical treatment for days. 11. Defendants are negligent and grossly negligent for the following reasons: a. failure to maintain, inspect, and/or repair the vessel s equipment; b. failing to maintain a safe work environment; c. failing to provide adequate training; d. failing to provide a safe working environment; 3

11 Case CSS Doc Filed 03/21/17 Page 5 of 12 Regulations. e. failing to properly secure vessel equipment; f. failing to conduct operations with an adequate crew; g. violating their own safety rules, policies and regulations; h. failing to maintain safe mechanisms for work on the vessel; i. failing to respond to complaints of an unnecessary and dangerous hazard; j. failure to keep a proper lookout; k. failing to provide appropriate medical attention; l. failing to warn Plaintiff of dangers hidden aboard the vessel; m. operating the vessel in an unsafe and improper manner; and n. other acts deemed negligent and grossly negligent. 12. At all relevant times, the GLOBETROTTER II was unseaworthy. 13. Additionally, Defendants are strictly liable for violations of Coast Guard 14. As a result of said occurrence, Plaintiff Michael Eaglin suffered severe injury to his body and mind. His earning capacity has been severely diminished if not eliminated altogether. Further, he has incurred substantial medical and pharmaceutical costs. 15. Plaintiff Michael Eaglin sustained severe injuries to his body and mind, which resulted in physical pain, mental anguish, and other medical problems. Plaintiff Michael Eaglin has sustained severe pain, physical impairment, cognitive injury, discomfort, mental anguish, and distress. In all reasonable probability, Plaintiff Michael Eaglin s physical pain, physical impairment, cognitive injury and mental anguish will continue indefinitely. Plaintiff Michael Eaglin has also suffered a loss of earnings in the past, as well as a loss of 4

12 Case CSS Doc Filed 03/21/17 Page 6 of 12 future earning capacity. Plaintiff Michael Eaglin has incurred and will incur pharmaceutical and medical expenses in connection with his injuries. Plaintiff seeks punitive damages against Defendants for arbitrarily and improperly denying maintenance and cure. Plaintiff has been damaged in a sum far in excess of the minimum jurisdictional limits of this Honorable Court, for which he now sues. 16. Plaintiffs are also entitled to punitive damages because the aforementioned actions of Defendants were grossly negligent. Defendants acted with flagrant and malicious disregard of Plaintiffs health and safety. Defendants were subjectively aware of the extreme risk posed by the conditions which caused Plaintiffs injury, but did nothing to rectify them. Instead, Defendants had Plaintiff and other crew members continue working despite the dangerous conditions that were posed to them. Defendants did so knowing that the conditions posed dangerous and grave safety concerns. Defendants acts and omissions involved an extreme degree of risk considering the probability and magnitude of potential harm to Plaintiffs. Defendants had actual, subjective awareness of the risk, and consciously disregarded such risk by allowing Plaintiff to work under such dangerous conditions. VI. Jury Trial 17. Plaintiffs hereby request a trial by jury on all claims and submit their jury fee herewith. VII. Prayer Plaintiffs pray that this citation issue and be served upon Defendants in a form and manner prescribed by law, requiring that the Defendants appear and answer, and that upon 5

13 Case CSS Doc Filed 03/21/17 Page 7 of 12 final hearing, Plaintiffs have judgment against Defendants in a total sum in excess of one million dollars and the minimum jurisdictional limits of this Court, plus pre-judgment and post-judgment interests, all costs of Court, and all such other and further relief, to which Plaintiffs show themselves justly entitled including but not limited to: Past and future medical damages; Past and future loss of earning capacity; Past and future pain and suffering and mental anguish; Past and future impairment; Past and future disfigurement; Exemplary damages; Loss of household services; Past and future maintenance and cure obligations; Pre-judgment interest; Post-judgment interest; Costs of Court; Attorney fees; All other relief to which Plaintiffs are justly entitled, either at law or in equity. 6

14 Case CSS Doc Filed 03/21/17 Page 8 of 12 Respectfully Submitted, ARNOLD & ITKIN LLP /s/ Kurt Arnold Kurt B. Arnold SBN: karnold@arnolditkin.com J. Kyle Findley SBN: kfindley@arnolditkin.com Kala Sellers SBN: ksellers@arnolditkin.com 6009 Memorial Drive Houston, TX Tel: Fax: e-service@arnolditkin.com ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS 7

15 Case CSS Doc Filed 03/21/17 Page 9 of 12

16 Case CSS Doc Filed 03/21/17 Page 10 of 12

17 Case CSS Doc Filed 03/21/17 Page 11 of 12

18 Case CSS Doc Filed 03/21/17 Page 12 of 12

19 Case CSS Doc Filed 03/21/17 Page 1 of 2 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE In re: Paragon Offshore plc., et al., Debtors. Chapter 11 Case No (CSS (Jointly Administered Related to Docket No. ORDER LIFTING THE AUTOMATIC STAY PURSUANT TO SECTION 362(d OF THE BANKRUPTCY CODE AND NOW THIS day of, 2017, upon consideration of the Motion of Michael Eaglin ( Movant for an Order granting relief from the automatic stay pursuant to Section 362(d of the Bankruptcy Code in order to allow certain state court litigation to proceed in the District Court of Harris County, Texas (the Motion, and any opposition thereto, and good cause to modify the stay having been found, it is hereby it is further ORDERED that the relief requested in the Motion is GRANTED as set forth herein; and ORDERED that the stay is lifted and the action pending in the District Court of Harris County, Texas (the State Court Litigation shall be permitted to proceed to adjudication; and it is further ORDERED that Movant shall be entitled to liquidate and satisfy any judgment or other resolution granted, if any, from applicable insurance coverage available to the Debtors; and it is further ORDERED, that, to the extent that insurance proceeds are unavailable, or insufficient, Movant will return to this Court for disposition of his claim; and it is further

20 Case CSS Doc Filed 03/21/17 Page 2 of 2 ORDERED that relief from the automatic stay shall be effective immediately upon entry of this Order and the 14 day stay provided in Bankruptcy Rule 4001(a(3 shall not apply. Dated:, 2017 Christopher S. Sontchi United States Bankruptcy Judge , v. 1

21 Case CSS Doc Filed 03/21/17 Page 1 of 2 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE In re: Paragon Offshore plc., et al., Debtors. Chapter 11 Case No (CSS (Jointly Administered Hearing Date: April 28, 2017 at 11:00 a.m. EDT Objection Deadline: April 7, 2017 at 4:00 p.m. NOTICE OF MOTION OF MICHAEL EAGLIN FOR RELIEF FROM STAY UNDER SECTION 362 OF THE BANKRUPTCY CODE To: All Persons on the Service List: Michael Eaglin (the Movant filed the attached Motion for Relief from Stay (the Motion which seeks an order lifting the stay to allow certain state court litigation to proceed in the District Court of Harris County, Texas. A HEARING ON THE MOTION WILL BE HELD ON APRIL 28, 2017 AT 11:00 A.M. (EASTERN DAYLIGHT TIME BEFORE THE HONORABLE CHRISTOPHER S. SONTCHI, UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT, 824 MARKET STREET, 5TH FLOOR, COURTROOM 6, WILMINGTON, DELAWARE You are required to file a response (and supporting documentation required by Local Rule (d to the attached Motion on or before APRIL 7, 2017 at 4:00 P.M. (Eastern Time with the Clerk of the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware. At the same time, you must also serve a copy of the response upon Movant s counsel: Goldstein & McClintock, LLLP, 1201 North Orange Street, Suite 7380, Wilmington, DE 19801, Attn: Maria Aprile Sawczuk, Esq.

22 Case CSS Doc Filed 03/21/17 Page 2 of 2 The hearing date specified above may be a preliminary hearing or may be consolidated with the final hearing, as determined by the Court. The attorneys for the parties shall confer with respect to the issues raised by the Motion in advance for the purpose of determining whether a consent judgment may be entered and/or for the purpose of stipulating to relevant facts. Dated: March 21, 2017 GOLDSTEIN & MCCLINTOCK LLLP By: /s/ Maria Aprile Sawczuk Maria Aprile Sawczuk (No North Orange Street, Suite 7380 Wilmington, DE ( ( (fax marias@restructuringshop.com Counsel for Michael Eaglin , v. 1