Center for Biological Diversity, Inc. v. BP America Production Co.
704 F.3d 413
| 5th Cir. | 2013Background
- Center for Biological Diversity sues BP and Transocean for alleged CWA, CERCLA, and EPCRA violations arising from the Deepwater Horizon disaster.
- MDL-2179 aggregated cases; Center’s claims placed in Pleading Bundle Dl seeking injunctive relief and related relief, with civil-penalty claims placed elsewhere.
- District court dismissed Dl Master Complaint for lack of standing, mootness, and lack of redressability, after finding the Macondo well capped (July 15, 2010) and killed (Sept. 19, 2010).
- Court held no ongoing discharge or viable offshore facility, so injunctive relief and most claims moot; EPCRA/penalty claims scrutinized separately.
- Center sought final judgment for appeal; district court entered final judgment concerning Dl Master Complaint as it related to Center’s claims, prompting this appeal.
- On appeal, court remands for further proceedings on EPCRA claim while affirming mootness of most other claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Center's claims are moot after the Macondo well was capped and killed | Center argues ongoing discharges render claims plausible and redressable. | No ongoing releases; mootness as no redressable injury or ongoing violation. | Most claims moot; injunctive relief moot; remand on EPCRA viability remains. |
| Whether Center has standing to pursue the EPCRA claim given mootness of others | EPCRA injury is redressable by obtaining written notices and public data. | EPCRA claim duplicative or moot due to available information. | Center has standing to pursue the EPCRA claim on the current record; not moot. |
| Whether the district court properly took judicial notice of the well's status | Court should not rely on outside facts about the well's status to decide jurisdiction. | Judicial notice appropriate; well status effectively dead was central. | Judicial notice proper; mootness analysis correct on remand. |
| Whether the MDL case-management decisions (pleading bundles) were an abuse of discretion | Bundling and separation of penalties could affect live claims. | Bundling decisions within the court's discretion; not error. | No abuse; management within district court’s discretion; no de facto dismissal of penalties. |
| Whether the Center’s request for remediation/monitoring relief was properly denied as moot | Courts should oversee remediation beyond government efforts. | Remediation overseen by Executive Branch; court cannot override. | Remediation relief moot given ongoing government cleanup and lack of concrete plaintiff-proposed deficiency. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gwaltney of Smithfield, Ltd. v. Chesapeake Bay Found., Inc., 484 U.S. 49 (1987) (mootness requires impossibility of recurrence for voluntary compliance)
- Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services, Inc., 528 U.S. 167 (2000) (scope of mootness; continuing controversy requirement)
- Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83 (1998) (standing/redressability; continuing violations as condition for relief)
- Envtl. Conservation Org. v. City of Dallas, 529 F.3d 519 (5th Cir. 2008) (standing and mootness; citizen suits supplement government action)
- Harris v. City of Houston, 151 F.3d 189 (5th Cir. 1998) (mootness when event sought to be enjoined has occurred)
- United States v. Laughlin, 10 F.3d 961 (2d Cir. 1993) (CERCLA/EPCRA notice and governmental response context)
- Sosebee v. Steadfast Ins. Co., 701 F.3d 1012 (5th Cir. 2012) (judicial notice procedures; need to hear after notice)
- FEC v. Akins, 524 U.S. 11 (1998) (informational injury under EPCRA/standing; public disclosure)
- Sierra Club, Inc. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 299 F.Supp.2d 693 (W.D. Ky. 2003) (informational injury under EPCRA; standing framework)