Barrera v. BP, P.L.C. (In Re Deepwater Horizon), 907 F.3d 232

Plaintiffs are 104 Mexican individuals and associations in the Deepwater Horizon MDL who rely on fishing income and whose claims remained after prior MDL settlements.
The MDL transferee court issued Pretrial Order 60 (PTO 60) requiring each remaining plaintiff to file an individual lawsuit with a wet-ink signed declaration by May 2, 2016, warning noncompliance would result in dismissal with prejudice.
Plaintiffs’ counsel requested extensions (initially 90 days, court granted 14 days and warned no further extensions); a second extension motion was not ruled on and plaintiffs did not meet the deadline.
The court issued a show-cause order; plaintiffs asserted clients were unreachable (travel, offshore, lack of electronic access) but provided no corroborating affidavits or records of counsel’s attempts to contact clients.
After multiple opportunities and some untimely individual filings, the district court dismissed plaintiffs’ claims with prejudice; the district court denied plaintiffs’ Rule 59(e) and 60(b) relief.
The Fifth Circuit affirmed, finding a clear record of delay and that lesser sanctions would not serve the interests of justice in the MDL context.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether dismissal with prejudice was appropriate for failure to comply with PTO 60	Logistical impossibility and client inaccessibility justified more time	Noncompliance with an explicit court order and deadlines warranted dismissal	Affirmed: dismissal with prejudice appropriate — clear record of delay
Whether the district court abused its discretion in docket management for an MDL	Court’s enforcement was an abuse given plaintiffs’ circumstances	MDL transferee courts deserve deference to enforce schedules	No abuse: heightened deference in MDL; court acted within discretion
Whether plaintiffs’ unsworn explanations sufficed without corroborating evidence or proof counsel tried to contact clients	Oral/unsworn explanations were adequate given clients’ circumstances	Plaintiffs failed to produce affidavits, call records, or other corroboration after multiple chances	Held: lack of corroboration showed inexcusable delay; supports dismissal
Whether lesser sanctions would have served the interests of justice	Lesser sanctions (dismissal without prejudice, fines, conditional relief) were possible	Warnings had been given; lesser sanctions would frustrate MDL management and risk fraudulent or phantom claims	Held: lesser sanctions would not serve justice; dismissal tailored to MDL efficiency concerns

Sealed Appellant v. Sealed Appellee, 452 F.3d 415 (5th Cir.) (standard for dismissal with prejudice requires clear record of delay and consideration of lesser sanctions)
Rogers v. Kroger Co., 669 F.2d 317 (5th Cir.) (listing lesser sanctions and standards for dismissal)
In re Asbestos Prod. Liab. Litig. (No. VI), 718 F.3d 236 (3d Cir.) (deference to transferee judge in MDL for enforcing case-management orders)
Thrasher v. City of Amarillo, 709 F.3d 509 (5th Cir.) (examples of lesser sanctions and dismissal standards)
Garcia v. Woman’s Hosp. of Tex., 143 F.3d 227 (5th Cir.) (docket-management decisions reviewed for abuse of discretion)
Elementis Chromium v. Coastal States Petroleum, 450 F.3d 607 (5th Cir.) (abuse-of-discretion standard)
Price v. McGathery, 792 F.2d 472 (5th Cir.) (application of dismissal standard in docket-management and service contexts)