ID 100212278 v. BP Exploration & Production, Inc.
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 2380
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Appellant (an automotive parts provider) filed Business Economic Loss claims under the Deepwater Horizon Settlement on behalf of five stores, seeking treatment as "tourism" businesses to avoid proving loss causation.
- Exhibit 2 to the Settlement lists NAICS codes that qualify as tourism businesses; appellant asserted NAICS 452990 (All Other General Merchandise Stores) or alternatively that its stores "accommodate or cater to" travelers.
- CSSP assigned each store NAICS 441310 (Automotive Parts and Accessories Stores), denied tourism designation, and the Appeal Panel affirmed for each store based on facts (advertising as auto-parts stores; lack of concrete evidence of tourist-focused sales; stores not in tourist areas).
- Appellant sought discretionary review in the district court; the district court denied review, and appellant appealed that denial to this Court.
- The Fifth Circuit reviewed whether the district court abused its discretion in denying review and affirmed, holding the district court did not abuse its discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court abused discretion by denying discretionary review | District court should review de novo and correct Appeal Panel's decision | Denial of review was within district court discretion; appellant reargues facts | No abuse of discretion; denial affirmed |
| Whether stores qualify as "tourism" businesses by "accommodating or catering" to travelers | Website guidance and sale of cargo equipment show stores serve travelers | Insufficient concrete evidence of tourist-directed sales or non-local customers | Appeal Panel’s factual determination reasonable; no abuse of discretion |
| Proper NAICS classification: 452990 vs 441310 | Stores fit 452990 (listed in Exhibit 2) | Stores primarily sell auto parts; used 441310 on 2010 tax returns; 441310 better describes primary activity | Classification as 441310 was not an abuse of discretion |
| Whether Exhibit 2’s NAICS list is exhaustive | (Alternative) Exhibit 2 may be illustrative so other businesses can qualify | BP argued Exhibit 2 might be exhaustive and Policy 289 improperly expanded it | Court did not decide exhaustiveness; unnecessary because Appeal Panel found no tourism activity |
Key Cases Cited
- Holmes Motors, Inc. v. BP Exploration & Prod., 829 F.3d 313 (5th Cir. 2016) (standard for reviewing district court denial of discretionary review)
- In re Deepwater Horizon, 785 F.3d 986 (5th Cir. 2015) (district court’s discretionary review is not mandatory; settlement aims to limit litigation)
- In re Deepwater Horizon, [citation="641 F. App'x 405"] (5th Cir. 2016) (denial of discretionary review not an abuse when issue is correctness of administrative factfinding)
- In re Deepwater Horizon, [citation="632 F. App'x 199"] (5th Cir. 2015) (abuse-of-discretion may occur if recurring, split-panel issue substantially affects administration of Settlement)