Date: 10-01-2012
Case Style: Bladimir Valerio-Rodrigues v. National Oilwell Varco, L.P.
Case Number: CAJ-2011-302
Judge: Gary E. Miller
Court: District Court, Canadian County, Oklahoma
Plaintiff's Attorney: Scott R. Jackson
Defendant's Attorney: Michael L. Darrah for Newfield Exploration Mid-Continent, Inc.
David L. Kearney and Lisa M. Stewart for National Oilwell Varco, L.P.
Description: COMES NOW Plaintiff, by and through his attorneys of record, and for his causes of action against Defendants, allege and state:
1. On or about August 22, 2007, National Oilwell Varco, L.P., was conducting operations on a well located in Canadian County, Oklahoma.
2. On or about August 22, 2007, Bladimir Valerio-Rodrigues, was employed by Southwest Oilfield Construction and present at this well site.
3. On or about August 22, 2007, Newfield Exploration Mid-Continent, Inc. owned and had employees present at the well upon which National Oilwell Varco, L.P. was conducting operations on that date.
4. At the time of this incident, National Oilwell Varco, L.P. was in the process of examining the tubing being pulled out of the well for deficiencies.
5. The examination process was conducted with a scanning machine through which the tubing would pass as it was pulled out of the hole.
6. The scanning machine was not bolted down and/or properly secured to a blowout preventer that had been placed on the well.
7. The existing well records known to Defendants at the time of the incident did not adequately indicate where the tubing anchor was located in the line of tubing being pulled from the well.
8. Defendants did not take reasonable precautions to bolt down andlor properly secure the scanning machine to the blowout preventer that had been placed on the well.
9. Defendants did not take reasonable precautions to locate the tubing anchor before and!or during the operations being conducted on the well.
10. Defendants knew or should have known that the diameter of the tubing anchor was larger than the diameter of the rest of the line of tubing and would not pass through the scanning machine being used to examine the tubing.
11. The floor of the rig used in conducting the operation was above the scanning machine.
12. Multiple persons, including Bladimir Valerio-Rodrigues, were present in the immediately vicinity of the scanning machine and rig floor at the time of the incident.
13. Defendants did not take reasonable precautions to adequately secure the rig floor before andlor during the operations being conducted on the well.
14. Defendants did not warn and/or advise the persons in the immediately vicinity of the scanning machine and rig floor at the time of the incident of the foreseeable dangers with pulling the tubing from the hole and passing it through the scanning machine without knowing where the tubing anchor was located in the line of tubing.
15. Defendants did not take reasonable precautions to ensure the safety of the persons in the immediately vicinity of the scanning machine and rig floor prior to the incident.
16. Defendants did not take reasonable precautions to ensure that the tubing anchor would not come into contact with the scanning machine once it came out of the hole.
17. Defendants were pulling the tubing out of the hole at a rate too fast for the circumstances.
18. Defendants negligently assumed that the tubing anchor was at the end and/or bottom of the line of tubing.
19. Defendants did not take reasonable precautions to adequately supervise the preparation for and/or actual operations conducted at the time of the incident.
20. Defendants did not take reasonable precautions to ensure that all machinery and equipment utilized in the preparation for andlor actual operations conducted at the time of the incident were properly secured and utilized.
21. Defendants knew or should have known that, under the circumstances, the tubing anchor was likely to come out of the hole unexpectedly, come into contact with the scanning machine and create an extremely dangerous and life threatening situation for persons in the immediately vicinity of the scanning machine.
22. The tubing anchor did, in fact, come out of the hole unexpectedly and come into contact with the scanning machine.
23. The tubing anchor caused the scanning machine to be raised from its position and break the chains that had loosely attached the scanning machine to the blowout preventer.
24. The scanning machine came into contact with the bottom of the rig floor causing it to move upward, throwing persons from the rig floor into the air and ultimately on the ground around the rig.
25. Bladimir Valerio-Rodrigues received injuries directly caused by this incident.
26. Defendants’ actions were negligent, willful, wanton, malicious and intentional, and with the knowledge that there was a substantial certainty that serious injury or death would occur to Bladimir Valerio-Rodrigues and other persons similarly situated.
27. Defendants willfully disregarded their knowledge that serious injury or death was substantially certain to occur and intentionally exposed Bladimir Valerio-Rodrigues, to that risk.
28. The actions of Defendants were not only negligent, but also willful, wanton, malicious, and intentional, and taken with reckless disregard for the rights of others, specifically, Bladimir Valerio-Rodrigues.
29. As a result of Defendants’ acts, Bladimir Valerio-Rodrigues suffered personal injuries, was prevented from transacting his business, suffered great pain of body and mind, and incurred expenses for medical attention for said injuries, with general and special damages totaling a sum in excess of$10,000.00.
30. Defendants should be punished by way of an award of punitive damages sufficient to deter these Defendants, and others similarly situated from committing similar acts and engaging in such conduct in the future.
31. That on August 7, 2009, Plaintiff filed a Petition in the District Court of Canadian County, State of Oklahoma styled Bladimir Valerio-Rodrigues, Plaintiff vs. National Oilwell Varco, L.P. and Newfield Exploration Mid-Continent, Inc., Defendants, Case No. CJ-2009-689. Thereafter, the Court consolidated Case No. CJ-2009-689 into Case No. CJ-2008-486.
32. That on April 26, 2010, a Dismissal Without Prejudice regarding the claims of Bladimir Valerio-Rodrigues was filed in the consolidated cases of CJ-2008-486 and CJ-2009-689.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants in an amount in excess of $75,000.00, in actual damages, and a sum in excess of $75,000.00 from each Defendant in punitive damages, or such sums as being fair and equitable by the jury, their costs and statutory interest, together with such other and further relief which is deemed by the Court to be fair, just and equitable.
ANSWER AND CROSS-CLAIM TO PLAINTIFF’S PETITION
Defendant National Oilwell Varco, L.P. (“NOV”), for its Answer to the Petition of Plaintiff Bladimir Valerio-Rodrigues (“Rodrigues”), denies each and every material allegation of Plaintiff’s Petition unless specifically admitted hereafter. In further Answer, NOV states as follows:
1. NOV admits the allegations contained in paragraph 1 of the Petition.
2. NOV is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the of the allegations contained in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Petition, and therefore
3. NOV admits the allegations contained in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Petition.
4. NOV denies the allegations contained in paragraph 6 of the Petition.
5. NOV denies the allegations contained in paragraph 7 of the Petition. The records stated the location.
6. NOV denies the allegations contained in paragraphs 8 through 10 of the Petition.
7. NOV admits the allegations contained in paragraph 11 of the Petition.
8. NOV is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations contained in paragraph 12 of the Petition, and therefore denies same.
9. NOV denies the allegations contained paragraphs 13 through 21 of the Amended Petition.
10. NOV is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations contained in paragraphs 22 through 25 of the Petition, and therefore denies same.
11. NOV denies the allegations contained in paragraphs 26 through 30 of the Petition.
12. NOV admits the allegations contained in paragraphs 31 and 32 of the Petition.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
1. The conduct of third parties was the cause of the accident insofar as incorrect information was provided to NOV as to the location of the tubing anchor. NOV acted appropriately based on the information it received.
2. Plaintiffs claims are barred, in whole or in part, by his own negligence, including, without limitation, his comparative or contributory negligence.
3. Failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
4. Any award of punitive damages to Plaintiff in this case violates the constitutional safeguards provided to Defendant under the Constitution of the United States of America.
5. Defendant would further show the Court that in the unlikely event it is held liable for punitive or other damages in this matter, the damages recoverable should be limited to the conditions and amounts set forth in 23 O.S. § 9.1.
6. Defendant reserves the right to assert additional affirmative defenses.
CROSS-CLAIM
Defendant National Oilwell Varco, L.P., for its cross-claim against Defendant Newfield Exploration Mid-Continent, Inc. alleges and states as follows:
1. NOV adopts and incorporates herein by reference all the allegations contained in its answer as if stated herein verbatim.
2. To the extent that NOV is found liable to the Plaintiff for the conduct of the Defendant Newfield Exploration Mid-Continent, Inc., NOV is entitled to indemnity and/or contribution from Newfield Exploration Mid-Continent, Inc. because the liability of Newfield Exploration Mid-Continent, Inc., if any, was the sole cause of the injury to Plaintiff Rodrigues herein.
WHEREFORE, Defendant National Oilwell Varco, L.R, for its cross-claim against Defendant Newfield Exploration Mid-Continent, Inc. prays for judgment over, against Defendant Newfield Exploration Mid-Continent, Inc. for any judgment rendered against it by Plaintiff herein and such other and further relief as the court mãS’ deem just and proper.
COMES NOW Defendant, Newfield Exploration Mid-Continent, Inc. and for it Answer to Plaintiff's Petition alleges and states the following:
Defendant admitted the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 thru 12 of Plaintiff's Petition.
Defendant denied the allegations contained in paragraphs 13 thru 21 of Plaintiff's Petition.
Defendant admitted the allegations contained in paragraphs 22 thru 24 of Plaintiff's Petition.
Defendant denied the allegations contained in paragraphs 25 thru 30 of Plaintiff's Petition.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
1. This Defendant denies each and every allegation contained in Plaintiffs Petition, both generally and specifically.
2. This Defendant specifically denies that it was in any way negligent in the happening of said accident and the resulting injuries to Plaintiff, if any; however, if it was negligent, which is specifically denied, that the Plaintiff was also negligent and that such negligence either caused or contributed to said accident and would prevent any recovery herein.
3. This Defendant alleges that the proximate cause of the accident and the resulting injuries to Plaintiff, if any, was the result of negligence of a third party over whom this Defendant had no direction or control.
4. Plaintiff’s claims are barred in whole and in part by reason of the applicable statute of limitations.
5. The Plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages are unwarranted and unreasonable and are in violation of the United States Constitution.
6. This Defendant reserves the right to allege additional affirmative defenses as the same become apparent during the course of discovery.
WHEREFORE, having fully answered, Defendant prays that Plaintiff take nothing by way of his Petition and that Defendant recover its costs and such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
BLADIMIR VALERIO-RODRIGUES’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT NEWFIELD EXPLORATION MID-CONTINENT, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS
COMES NOW the Plaintiff, Bladimir Valerio-Rodrigues, in response to Defendant Newfield Exploration Mid-Continent, Inc.’s Motion To Dismiss advises this Court that he is a citizen of Mexico and currently resides in Mexico. On April 9, 2012, Plaintiff signed a Verification to his Responses to Defendant Interrogatories, Requests for Production and Requests for Admissions. (See Verification, attached as Exhibit “A”). This Verification was signed in Mexico and mailed to Plaintiffs counsel. As of the filing of this response, Plaintiffs counsel has not received the original Verification form.
Plaintiff confesses that he has not presented in Oklahoma to give deposition testimony. Plaintiff has not been able to obtain proper papers to enter the United States for purposes of giving deposition testimony. Further, Plaintiff advises that he does not believe he can appear in the United States to give deposition testimony within the next thirty (30) days. Plaintiff can make himself available for deposition testimony in his country of Mexico, by video deposition or by telephone conference should Defendant agree to these alternative methods.
For these reasons, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Court to overrule the motion because Plaintiff has responded to Defendant’s discovery requests.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully asks this Court for relief from its Order to appear, in person, in Oklahoma to give deposition testimony and further allow Plaintiff to give deposition testimony either in his home country of Mexico, in person. or by video or telephone communications.
Outcome: This matter comes before the Court on this l8” day of June, 2012, upon Defendant Newfield Exploration Mid-Continent, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss and Sanctions. Appearing for Plaintiff was his attorney, Scott Jackson. Appearing for Defendant Newfield Exploration Mid-Continent, Inc. was its attorney, Jennifer K. Christian. Appearing for National OiIweII Varco, LP. was its attorney, Leasa Stewart. Appearing for Liberty Mutual Insurance Company was its attorney, Jeremy Ward. The Court, after review of the pleadings and hearing the arguments of the parties, finds that said Motion to Dismiss should be and is hereby GRANTED. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the claims of Bladimir Valerio-Rodrigues are hereby dismissed.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments:
