Lake Eugenie Land Development, Inc. v. BP Exploration & Production, Inc.
785 F.3d 986
| 5th Cir. | 2015Background
- Settlement Agreement and CSSP were established to compensate economic losses from the Deepwater Horizon spill; BP and the Economic and Property Damages Class are parties.
- May 20, 2013 order adopted Final Rules governing discretionary district court review of Appeal Panel determinations; BP challenged these Final Rules.
- Final Rules restrict docketing of review requests and limit which awards may be appealed; Rule 16/19 preclude certain cases from district court review.
- BP filed FRCP 59(e) motion June 17, 2013 to amend the May 20 Order and Final Rules; district court denied July 16, 2013.
- BP’s August 2, 2013 FRAP 4(a)(4)(A)(iv) notice of appeal followed; four related Non-Profit Appeals were consolidated.
- Court addressed (1) jurisdiction over BP’s appeal of the May 20 Order, (2) right to appeal claim determinations under the Settlement Agreement, (3) whether Final Rules violate that right, and (4) whether district court erred in categorically precluding certain cases from review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether BP's appeal is properly before the court under collateral order. | BP seeks appellate review of district court Final Rules. | Class Counsel argues limited or no appellate right. | Yes; collateral order jurisdiction exists. |
| Whether a right to appeal claim determinations exists under the Settlement Agreement. | BP contends the Agreement preserves appellate rights to this court. | Class Counsel argues no such right. | There is a right to appeal to this court. |
| Whether Final Rules violate FRCP 79 docketing requirements for appeals. | Final Rules fail to docket review orders, impairing appeal timing. | Rules govern private settlement administration and are non-docketed. | Final Rules violate the right to appellate review; vacated and remanded for docketing compliance. |
| Whether district court properly precluded review for Matching Policy, Alternative Causation, and Non-Profit cases. | BP argues preclusion undermines appeal rights post-Deepwater developments. | Rules are appropriate management of settlement program. | Preclusion of Matching Policy requires remand for reconsideration; no error for Alternative Causation and Non-Profit preclusions. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Deepwater Horizon, 732 F.3d 326 (5th Cir. 2013) (jurisdiction and interpretation of Settlement Agreement; collateral order rationale; Matching Policy referenced)
- United States v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 905 F.2d 610 (2d Cir. 1990) (exclusive jurisdiction language interpreted as venue, not exclusion of review)
- Montez v. Hickenlooper, 640 F.3d 1126 (10th Cir. 2011) (consent decree without explicit waiver may permit appellate review of district‑court final resolutions)
- In re Deepwater Horizon, 739 F.3d 790 (5th Cir. 2014) (Deepwater Horizon II; confirms causation framework and review issues post-remand)
- United States v. Knowles, 29 F.3d 947 (5th Cir. 1994) (waiver concepts within criminal context relevant to discussion of waiver in settlement context)