Environmental Injunctive Relief Claims Fail In Gulf Oil Spill Litigation
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana recently dismissed a group of injunctive relief claims asserted in the Deepwater Horizon Gulf Oil Spill litigation pending in New Orleans. The claims focused on prospective relief under a variety of federal environmental statutes.
As explained by Hon. Carl J. Barbier in his Order and Reasons, early in the case the Court established a number of "pleading bundles" intended to organize the filing of master complaints and related proceedings in the multi-district litigation. Pleading Bundle D1 included claims for injunctive relief filed by the Plaintiffs' Steering Committee regarding, among other things, defendants' violations of the Clean Water Act (CWA), the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 (EPCRA), and the Endangered Species Act (ESA).
The Transocean and BP defendants moved to dismiss the Pleading Bundle D1 claims for injunctive relief. On June 17, Judge Barbier agreed that the claims should be dismissed. He reserved for later consideration, however, claims asserted in the D-1 Master Complaint that remained pending under general maritime law and state law.
Judge Barbieri ruled first that the Plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the asserted claims for injunctive relief. The court characterized the relief sought as a declaration of defendants' violations of the CWA, CERCLA, EPCRA, and ESA, and an injunction to prevent operation of the defendants' offshore facility in a manner that would result in further such violations. But, the court pointed out as part of its ruling, the injuries alleged and remedies sought under the CWA, CERCLA, ESA, and certain state law claims would not achieve any benefit, Judge Barbieri said, because the Macondo well had been sealed, and BP and the Unified Area Command remained at work cleaning the Gulf of Mexico.
The court went on to state that the claims for injunctive relief were moot because there was no showing of an ongoing violation of the statutes under which relief was sought. Again, this was because the Macondo well had been sealed.
Finally, Judge Barbieri ruled that the claims for injunctive relief were subject to dismissal where the defendant parties were not "in violation," as required by the various statutes under which relief was sought.
Arnold & Itkin LLP attorneys serve clients in Texas and throughout the nation, handling maritime injury and many other types of complex cases.
If you have any questions regarding a maritime incident or have suffered a maritime injury, contact a maritime attorney online at Arnold & Itkin LLP for a free consultation or call our maritime law office toll free at 866-222-2606.
