Consolidating the BP Oil Spill Litigation

SandBar Printer-Friendly Article
SandBar 9:3, August, 2010 Recommended citation: Lindsey Etheridge,Consolidating the BP Oil Spill Litigation, 9:3 SandBar 7 (2010). Consolidating the BP Oil Spill Litigation Lindsey Etheridge In the wake of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, over 300 lawsuits have been filed against the companies involved. In July, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (Panel) met in Boise, Idaho, to discuss consolidating many of those cases. On August 10, the panel agreed to consolidate the litigation in a federal court located in New Orleans. Background The Panel consists of seven judges from courts across the country. The Panel’s duty is to determine whether lawsuits filed in different federal districts have one or more questions of fact in common. If it finds that cases involve similar factual issues, the Panel transfers the cases to one district for consolidated pretrial proceedings. The Panel also selects the judge or judges who will preside over the proceedings. At the hearing on July 29, the Panel considered the transfer of a number of the cases filed against the companies involved in the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. The cases on the docket included 24 from Alabama, 10 from Florida, 33 from Louisiana, 8 from Mississippi, and 2 from Texas.1 The lawsuits contain many similar allegations, such as negligence, strict liability, and public nuisance, by various people, including fishermen, real estate owners, and seafood business owners. Consolidating these cases should allow for a more efficient fact-finding process as well as consistent pretrial rulings on the facts surrounding the events of April 20, 2010. This article provides a sampling of the oil spill cases that have been consolidated. Many of the 77 cases are proposed class actions. The lawsuits name all of the major companies involved as defendants, including British Petroleum (BP), Transocean (the owner/operator of the Deepwater Horizon oil rig), Halliburton Energy Services (the provider of cementing operations of the well), and Cameron International Corporation (the manufacturer/ supplier of the rig’s blow-out preventers). In this article, they will collectively be referred to as “the companies.” Commercial Fishing Claims Commercial fishermen are one of the most obvious classes of plaintiffs. In a case from Alabama,2 James F. Mason, Jr., a shrimper, is suing the companies on behalf of himself and his company, K & J, Inc., which operates an 82-foot shrimp boat. He also seeks to represent all commercial fishermen in Alabama who work in the Gulf of Mexico. He asserts that the oil has prevented normal fishing and shrimping operations in the Gulf and that he and other shrimpers, fishermen, and oystermen will lose income as a result. Mason accuses the companies of several negligent acts leading to the explosion of the oil rig, such as failing to properly operate the Deepwater Horizon, failing to properly train and supervise employees on the rig, and failing to properly inspect equipment on the rig. He also alleges that the companies were negligent in their response to the accident because they did not promptly and adequately warn people of the spill and the resulting danger. Particularly, he claims that the companies downplayed the nature, size, and extent of the leak and did not take the necessary measures to control the oil slick. Mason avers that the companies are liable to him and to the entire class of Alabama shrimpers, fishermen, and oystermen for damages suffered as a result of the companies’ negligent acts. He seeks compensation, as well as punitive damages. In another lawsuit, John T. Harris, a commercial fisherman in Florida, is suing the companies for negligence, strict liability, and strict products liability.3 He is in the business of catching and selling primarily Gulf red snapper, grouper, and tilefish and holds a Gulf reef fish permit. He seeks to represent all commercial fishermen in the Gulf of Mexico who hold a Gulf reef fish permit. Harris claims that the companies were negligent in the operation of the Deepwater Horizon oil rig, which caused the discharge of thousands of gallons of crude oil into the Gulf of Mexico. He also asserts that the companies are strictly liable for all damages suffered by commercial fishermen. When a person or company is strictly liable for damages, it does not matter whether they acted negligently or committed any wrongdoing. Liability is based on the fact that the nature of the conduct causing the harm created a foreseeable risk of injury or damage to another person or property. In this case, the fishermen only have to prove that they suffered damages and show that the oil spill caused those damages. In addition, Harris claims that Cameron International, the company that manufactured the blow-out preventers on the Deepwater Horizon, should be held strictly liable under strict products liability. When a product contains a defect, and that defect causes injury or damage to a person or property, the company that manufactured the product may be held strictly liable. The function of blow-out preventers is to shut off an oil well when there is a leak. Harris asserts that the blow-out preventers were defective and failed to operate properly, causing thousands of gallons of oil to spill into the Gulf. Harris seeks compensation and punitive damages. Property Owners’ Claims Property owners are alleging damage to their property, as well as loss of income from decreased tourism. In an Alabama case,4 Peter Burke and three other property owners are suing the companies on behalf of themselves, as owners of property on the Gulf Coast, and on behalf of all similarly-situated Gulf Coast property owners. Burke rents his properties to tourists visiting the beach and has had difficulty finding renters because of the uncertainty of the oil spill situation and the expectation that oil may reach the coast. Burke and the other property owners allege that the companies negligently and recklessly caused and/or allowed thousands of gallons of crude oil to spill into the Gulf of Mexico, causing damage to their properties and businesses. They also accuse the companies of trespass and nuisance. They claim that the release of the oil, whether negligently, intentionally, or recklessly, constitutes trespass onto their property, and such trespass makes the property less valuable, less profitable, and unmarketable. They assert that the release of oil also constitutes a nuisance because it disturbs their right to use and enjoy their property. Finally, the property owners claim that the companies should be held strictly liable for all damages suffered by Gulf Coast property owners. They assert that the companies’ activities of drilling and transporting oil is abnormally dangerous and ultrahazardous, creating strict liability. The property owners seek several forms of relief, including an injunction requiring the companies to clean up the oil spill, compensation, punitive damages, and loss of income damages, all with interest. Tourists’ Claims In one lawsuit, a citizen of Arkansas and a citizen of Missouri are suing the companies, claiming that they have been deprived of their planned vacations to Gulf Shores, Alabama.5 George Jett and Onalee Fore each paid nonrefundable money to rent vacation homes in Gulf Shores. They planned to enjoy the beach and engage in fishing activities. They claim that the closure of fishing in the Gulf has interfered with their vacation plans and caused them to lose money. Jett and Fore seek to represent all tourists who have lost money as a result of their vacation plans being ruined by the oil spill. They allege negligence against the companies for causing and/or allowing the rig explosion and oil spill. They claim the companies are liable to them and to other people who have lost money paid on rental homes, fishing charters, and other recreational activities. They seek compensation, including attorney’s fees and interest and punitive damages. Divers’ Claims In one case from Mississippi, Jessica Staley, a certified diver, is suing the companies for damages.6 She also seeks to represent all other Mississippi residents who are certified divers and have been deprived of diving in the Gulf since the oil spill. She accuses the companies of numerous negligent acts, including failing to properly operate the Deepwater Horizon, failing to properly inspect equipment on the rig, and failing to adequately train and supervise employees on the rig. She seeks compensation, punitive damages, interest, and attorney’s fees. Conclusion Other lawsuits that the Panel considered in the consolidation hearing included claims by a boat transportation company that supplies jobs to the people of Louisiana,7 a tour guide and charter fishing company,8 and at least one of the families of a worker who died in the oil rig explosion.9 Twenty-three attorneys argued before the Panel on July 29. Those representing Gulf Coast residents and businesses pushed for the lawsuits to be transferred to a federal district court in New Orleans, nearest the disaster. The defendant companies would have preferred that the cases be moved to the oil-centric Houston area. The panel ruled, “Upon careful consideration, we have settled upon the Eastern District of Louisiana as the most appropriate district for this litigation. Without discounting the spill’s effects on other states, if there is a geographic and psychological ‘center of gravity’ in this docket, then the Eastern District of Louisiana is closest to it.”10 Endnotes 1. In re: Oil Spill by the Oil Rig “Deepwater Horizon” in the Gulf of Mexico, on April 20, 2010, MDL No. 2179 (July 29, 2010) (hearing order). 2. Mason v. Transocean, Ltd., 2010 U.S. Dist. Ct. Pleadings 298885 (S.D. Ala April 29, 2010). 3. Harris v. Transocean, Ltd., 2010 U.S. Dist. Ct. Pleadings 129 (N.D. Fla. May 4, 2010). 4. Burke v. BP Corp., 2010 U.S. Dist. Ct. Pleadings 195 (S.D. Ala. May 13, 2010). 5. Jett v. BP, 2010 Dist. Ct. Pleadings 228 (S.D. Ala. June 14, 2010). 6. Staley v. Cameron Int’l Corp., 2010 U.S. Dist. Ct. Pleadings 181 (S.D. Miss. May 4, 2010). 7. Nova Affiliated, S.A. v. BP, 2010 U.S. Dist. Ct. Pleadings 1313 (E.D. La. April 30, 2010). 8. Fish Commander, LLC v. BP, 2010 U.S. Dist. Ct. Pleadings 1339 (E.D. La. May 4, 2010). 9. Roshto v. Transocean, 2010 U.S. Dist. Ct. Pleadings 1156 (May 7, 2010). 10. In re: Oil Spill by the Oil Rig “Deepwater Horizon” in the Gulf of Mexico, on April 20, 2010, MDL No. 2179 (Aug. 10, 2010) (transfer order).
Phone (662) 915-7775 • Fax (662) 915-5267 • 256 Kinard Hall, Wing E, University, MS 38677-1848

SandBar 9:3, August, 2010
Recommended citation: Lindsey Etheridge,Consolidating the BP Oil Spill Litigation, 9:3 SandBar 7 (2010).

Lindsey Etheridge

In the wake of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, over 300 lawsuits have been filed against the companies involved. In July, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (Panel) met in Boise, Idaho, to discuss consolidating many of those cases. On August 10, the panel agreed to consolidate the litigation in a federal court located in New Orleans.

Background
The Panel consists of seven judges from courts across the country. The Panel’s duty is to determine whether lawsuits filed in different federal districts have one or more questions of fact in common. If it finds that cases involve similar factual issues, the Panel transfers the cases to one district for consolidated pretrial proceedings. The Panel also selects the judge or judges who will preside over the proceedings.
At the hearing on July 29, the Panel considered the transfer of a number of the cases filed against the companies involved in the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. The cases on the docket included 24 from Alabama, 10 from Florida, 33 from Louisiana, 8 from Mississippi, and 2 from Texas.1 The lawsuits contain many similar allegations, such as negligence, strict liability, and public nuisance, by various people, including fishermen, real estate owners, and seafood business owners. Consolidating these cases should allow for a more efficient fact-finding process as well as consistent pretrial rulings on the facts surrounding the events of April 20, 2010.
This article provides a sampling of the oil spill cases that have been consolidated. Many of the 77 cases are proposed class actions. The lawsuits name all of the major companies involved as defendants, including British Petroleum (BP), Transocean (the owner/operator of the Deepwater Horizon oil rig), Halliburton Energy Services (the provider of cementing operations of the well), and Cameron International Corporation (the manufacturer/ supplier of the rig’s blow-out preventers). In this article, they will collectively be referred to as “the companies.”

Commercial Fishing Claims
Commercial fishermen are one of the most obvious classes of plaintiffs. In a case from Alabama,2 James F. Mason, Jr., a shrimper, is suing the companies on behalf of himself and his company, K & J, Inc., which operates an 82-foot shrimp boat. He also seeks to represent all commercial fishermen in Alabama who work in the Gulf of Mexico. He asserts that the oil has prevented normal fishing and shrimping operations in the Gulf and that he and other shrimpers, fishermen, and oystermen will lose income as a result.
      Mason accuses the companies of several negligent acts leading to the explosion of the oil rig, such as failing to properly operate the Deepwater Horizon, failing to properly train and supervise employees on the rig, and failing to properly inspect equipment on the rig. He also alleges that the companies were negligent in their response to the accident because they did not promptly and adequately warn people of the spill and the resulting danger. Particularly, he claims that the companies downplayed the nature, size, and extent of the leak and did not take the necessary measures to control the oil slick.
      Mason avers that the companies are liable to him and to the entire class of Alabama shrimpers, fishermen, and oystermen for damages suffered as a result of the companies’ negligent acts. He seeks compensation, as well as punitive damages.
      In another lawsuit, John T. Harris, a commercial fisherman in Florida, is suing the companies for negligence, strict liability, and strict products liability.3 He is in the business of catching and selling primarily Gulf red snapper, grouper, and tilefish and holds a Gulf reef fish permit. He seeks to represent all commercial fishermen in the Gulf of Mexico who hold a Gulf reef fish permit.
      Harris claims that the companies were negligent in the operation of the Deepwater Horizon oil rig, which caused the discharge of thousands of gallons of crude oil into the Gulf of Mexico. He also asserts that the companies are strictly liable for all damages suffered by commercial fishermen. When a person or company is strictly liable for damages, it does not matter whether they acted negligently or committed any wrongdoing. Liability is based on the fact that the nature of the conduct causing the harm created a foreseeable risk of injury or damage to another person or property. In this case, the fishermen only have to prove that they suffered damages and show that the oil spill caused those damages.
      In addition, Harris claims that Cameron International, the company that manufactured the blow-out preventers on the Deepwater Horizon, should be held strictly liable under strict products liability. When a product contains a defect, and that defect causes injury or damage to a person or property, the company that manufactured the product may be held strictly liable. The function of blow-out preventers is to shut off an oil well when there is a leak. Harris asserts that the blow-out preventers were defective and failed to operate properly, causing thousands of gallons of oil to spill into the Gulf. Harris seeks compensation and punitive damages.

Property Owners’ Claims
Property owners are alleging damage to their property, as well as loss of income from decreased tourism. In an Alabama case,4 Peter Burke and three other property owners are suing the companies on behalf of themselves, as owners of property on the Gulf Coast, and on behalf of all similarly-situated Gulf Coast property owners. Burke rents his properties to tourists visiting the beach and has had difficulty finding renters because of the uncertainty of the oil spill situation and the expectation that oil may reach the coast.
      Burke and the other property owners allege that the companies negligently and recklessly caused and/or allowed thousands of gallons of crude oil to spill into the Gulf of Mexico, causing damage to their properties and businesses. They also accuse the companies of trespass and nuisance. They claim that the release of the oil, whether negligently, intentionally, or recklessly, constitutes trespass onto their property, and such trespass makes the property less valuable, less profitable, and unmarketable. They assert that the release of oil also constitutes a nuisance because it disturbs their right to use and enjoy their property.
      Finally, the property owners claim that the companies should be held strictly liable for all damages suffered by Gulf Coast property owners. They assert that the companies’ activities of drilling and transporting oil is abnormally dangerous and ultrahazardous, creating strict liability.
      The property owners seek several forms of relief, including an injunction requiring the companies to clean up the oil spill, compensation, punitive damages, and loss of income damages, all with interest.

Tourists’ Claims
In one lawsuit, a citizen of Arkansas and a citizen of Missouri are suing the companies, claiming that they have been deprived of their planned vacations to Gulf Shores, Alabama.5 George Jett and Onalee Fore each paid nonrefundable money to rent vacation homes in Gulf Shores. They planned to enjoy the beach and engage in fishing activities. They claim that the closure of fishing in the Gulf has interfered with their vacation plans and caused them to lose money.
Jett and Fore seek to represent all tourists who have lost money as a result of their vacation plans being ruined by the oil spill. They allege negligence against the companies for causing and/or allowing the rig explosion and oil spill. They claim the companies are liable to them and to other people who have lost money paid on rental homes, fishing charters, and other recreational activities. They seek compensation, including attorney’s fees and interest and punitive damages.

Divers’ Claims
In one case from Mississippi, Jessica Staley, a certified diver, is suing the companies for damages.6 She also seeks to represent all other Mississippi residents who are certified divers and have been deprived of diving in the Gulf since the oil spill. She accuses the companies of numerous negligent acts, including failing to properly operate the Deepwater Horizon, failing to properly inspect equipment on the rig, and failing to adequately train and supervise employees on the rig. She seeks compensation, punitive damages, interest, and attorney’s fees.

Conclusion
Other lawsuits that the Panel considered in the consolidation hearing included claims by a boat transportation company that supplies jobs to the people of Louisiana,7 a tour guide and charter fishing company,8 and at least one of the families of a worker who died in the oil rig explosion.9
Twenty-three attorneys argued before the Panel on July 29. Those representing Gulf Coast residents and businesses pushed for the lawsuits to be transferred to a federal district court in New Orleans, nearest the disaster. The defendant companies would have preferred that the cases be moved to the oil-centric Houston area. The panel ruled, “Upon careful consideration, we have settled upon the Eastern District of Louisiana as the most appropriate district for this litigation. Without discounting the spill’s effects on other states, if there is a geographic and psychological ‘center of gravity’ in this docket, then the Eastern District of Louisiana is closest to it.”10

Endnotes
1.   In re: Oil Spill by the Oil Rig “Deepwater Horizon” in the Gulf of Mexico, on April 20, 2010, MDL No. 2179 (July 29, 2010) (hearing order).
2.   Mason v. Transocean, Ltd., 2010 U.S. Dist. Ct. Pleadings 298885 (S.D. Ala April 29, 2010).
3.   Harris v. Transocean, Ltd., 2010 U.S. Dist. Ct. Pleadings 129 (N.D. Fla. May 4, 2010).
4.   Burke v. BP Corp., 2010 U.S. Dist. Ct. Pleadings 195 (S.D. Ala. May 13, 2010).
5.   Jett v. BP, 2010 Dist. Ct. Pleadings 228 (S.D. Ala. June 14, 2010).
6.   Staley v. Cameron Int’l Corp., 2010 U.S. Dist. Ct. Pleadings 181 (S.D. Miss. May 4, 2010).
7.   Nova Affiliated, S.A. v. BP, 2010 U.S. Dist. Ct. Pleadings 1313 (E.D. La. April 30, 2010).
8.   Fish Commander, LLC v. BP, 2010 U.S. Dist. Ct. Pleadings 1339 (E.D. La. May 4, 2010).
9.   Roshto v. Transocean, 2010 U.S. Dist. Ct. Pleadings 1156 (May 7, 2010).
10. In re: Oil Spill by the Oil Rig “Deepwater Horizon” in the Gulf of Mexico, on April 20, 2010, MDL No. 2179 (Aug. 10, 2010) (transfer order).