Justia U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

ACL contracted with ES&H and USES following an oil spill to provide cleanup services. After ACL failed to pay the outstanding amounts owed to the companies, the United States paid the balance out of the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund and then filed suit against ACL to recover its payments. The court concluded that the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA), 33 U.S.C. 2701 et seq., provides the exclusive source of law for an action involving a responsible party's liability for removal costs governed by OPA and held that ACL does not have a cause of action against the spill responders who exercised their statutory right to file claims with the Fund after ACL failed to timely pay their claims. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of ACL's claims against ES&H and USES as displaced under OPA.View "United States v. American Commercial Lines" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, the Warrens and the Javeeds, filed suit against defendants (Chesapeake entities), alleging that defendants breached royalty provisions in oil and gas leases by deducting post-production costs from the sales proceeds of natural gas. The district court held that the leases contained "at the well" royalty provisions, under decisions of the Supreme Court of Texas in Heritage Resources, Inc. v. NationsBank and Judice v. Mewbourne Oil Co., Chesapeake was authorized to make post-production deductions in determining the amount realized at the mouth of the well, despite the provisions in the Warrens' leases that the royalty would be free of certain post-production costs. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the Warrens' claims for failure to state a claim. However, the court concluded that the Javeeds' claim should not have been dismissed with prejudice where it was not apparent from the face of the complaint or attachments that they could not conceivably state a cause of action. Accordingly, the court modified the district court's judgment as to the Javeeds' claims.View "Warren, et al. v. Chesapeake Exploration, L.L.C., et al." on Justia Law

This case stemmed from Pioneer's efforts to seek insurance coverage under Steadfast's umbrella policy for costs and expenses incurred in cleaning up and remediating some property. Applying Louisiana's choice-of-law rules, the court concluded that Texas law applied because the insurance policy at issue was issued and delivered under Texas insurance statutes. The district court found that Texas and Louisiana law do not conflict on the issue of insurance policy interpretation and applied Louisiana law. Because neither party challenged this determination, the court did the same. On the merits, the court concluded that the district court did not err by holding that the exclusions within the Property Damage exclusion and the Blended Pollution endorsement were applicable, thus precluding coverage for the costs of remediating the Meaux property and containment; the costs of containment were precluded by the clear language of the policy; the costs of remediating the Rutherford property were unavailable due to its inability to allocate remediation costs; the costs of settling the lawsuits were unavailable due to the retained limit; and the costs of plugging the well were precluded by the OIL endorsement. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Pioneer Exploration, L.L.C. v. Steadfast Ins. Co." on Justia Law

BP and Andarko appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the the government on the question of their liability for civil penalties under 33 U.S.C. 1321(b)(7)(A). Section 1321(b)(7)(A) imposes mandatory penalties upon the owners of facilities "from which oil or a hazardous substance is discharged." The court found no genuine dispute as to defendants' liability for civil penalties where the well's cement failed, resulting in the loss of controlled confinement of oil such that the oil ultimately entered navigable waters. Therefore, the well is a facility "from which oil or a hazardous substance was discharged""into or upon the navigable waters of the United States." Andarko and BP "shall be subject to a civil penalty" calculated in accordance with statutory and regulatory guidelines and this liability is unaffected by the path traversed by the discharged oil. Nor is liability precluded by any culpability on the part of the vessel's owner or operator. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "In Re: Deepwater Horizon" on Justia Law

EMS appealed the district court's order denying its motion to remand its suit against the City to the state court from which it was removed. The court concluded that removal was improper because none of the claims in EMS's state court civil action satisfied either the federal question or diversity requirements of original jurisdiction; the district court's prior jurisdiction over the claims asserted in City v. CLECO, which were now dismissed, did not vest the district court with jurisdiction over EMS's claims; regardless of how factually intertwined with EMS's suit, the district court's retention of jurisdiction over the post-settlement matters could not substitute for original jurisdiction for the purpose of supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1367 or removal under section 1441, given that EMS's claims were not asserted in the same proceeding as the claims in City v. CLECO; and, if Baccus v. Parrish retained any precedential value, it was distinguishable and inapposite in this instance. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. View "Energy Mgmt. Servs. v. City of Alexandria" on Justia Law

Under a Power Sales Agreement, the Authorities granted Entergy the right to oversee the generation of power and to purchase the generated power. Plaintiffs filed suit against Entergy after their properties were flooded and eroded after the Authorities and Entergy opened spillway gates during certain times. Because the state law property damages claims at issue here infringed on FERC's operational control, the court held that they were conflict preempted. Accordingly, the court held that the district court properly concluded that the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791-828c, preempted plaintiffs' claim for negligence. The court affirmed the district court's judgment in its entirety. View "Simmons, et al. v. Sabine River Authority, et al." on Justia Law

This case stemmed from the Deepwater Horizon drilling platform oil spill. On appeal, BP challenged the district court's decision upholding the Claims Administrator's interpretation of the settlement agreement between it and the class of parties injured in the oil spill and the district court's dismissal of its action for breach of contract against the Administrator and denial of its motion for a preliminary injunction. The court concluded that the balance of equities favored a tailored stay where those who experienced actual injury traceable to loss from the Deepwater Horizon accident continued to receive recovery but those who did not receive their payments until this case was fully heard and decided through the judicial process weighed in favor of BP. Accordingly, the court reversed the denial of the preliminary injunction and instructed the district court to expeditiously craft a narrowly-tailored injunction that allowed the time necessary for deliberate reconsideration of significant issues on remand. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of BP's suit against the Claim Administrator. View "In Re: Deepwater Horizon" on Justia Law

G&M filed suit against BP, asserting that it was a co-owner of both the pumping station and the land on which it sits and seeking an accounting for all revenue and profit that BP made from the pumping station. The district court granted summary judgment for BP where BP contended that the St. Julien Doctrine prescribed G&M's claim and contested G&M's assertion of co-ownership. The court concluded that the St. Julien Doctrine did not apply in this case where the bare existence of the pumping station did not demonstrate G&M's consent or acquiescence to a servitude. Nor could G&M's inaction in the expropriation action serve as the basis for finding this final element of the St. Julien Doctrine. Because G&M never acquired an ownership interest in the pumping station, the resolution of this issue turned on whether those profits were the "civil fruits" of the co-owned Tract. The district court reversed and remanded to the district court to further consider whether the profits were civil fruits of the Tract and, if so, whether G&M was therefore entitled to an accounting. View "Gulf and Miss. River Transp. Co., Ltd. v. BP Oil Pipeline Co." on Justia Law

A severe rainstorm in 2006 caused two wastewater storage tanks at CITGO's Lake Charles Louisiana refinery to fail and over two million gallons of oil flooded into the surrounding waterways. The United States filed suit against CITGO under the Clean Water Act (CWA), 33 U.S.C. 1321, seeking civil penalties and injunctive relief. The district court imposed a $6 million penalty against CITGO and ordered injunctive relief. Both parties appealed. The court concluded that the motion to dismiss was properly denied where there was no diligent prosecution by the State and no jurisdictional issue to resolve; the district court needed to have made a finding on the amount of economic benefit and that such a finding was central to the ability of the district court to assess the statutory factors and for an appellate court to review that assessment; the court vacated the civil penalty award and remanded for re-evaluation; at that time, the district court should reconsider its findings with respect to CITGO's conduct, giving special attention to what CITGO knew prior to the oil spill and its delays in addressing recognized deficiencies; and the court rejected the government's argument that the district court erred with respect to its findings on the amount of oil spilled. View "United States, et al. v. Citgo Petroleum Corp." on Justia Law

Anadarko appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Williams Alaska, arguing that Williams Alaska ignored the parties' agreements to pass through shipping credits on purchased oil. The court, construing the effect of the agreements in light of the contract and the parties' course of performance, concluded that the judgment for Williams Alaska could not stand; the agreements required Williams Alaska to remit any Quality Bank credits it received for the crude oil purchased under the contract; the court rejected Williams Alaska's contention that the obligation to remit the credits expired upon the termination of the agreement; Anadarko filed suit within the four-year statute of limitations and its suit was not time-barred; and Anadarko was entitled to interest on the unpaid Quality Bank credits from the time of breach. Accordingly, the court reversed and rendered judgment in favor of Anadarko, remanding for further proceedings. View "Anadarko Petroleum Corp. v. Williams Alaska Petroleum, Inc." on Justia Law