Lake Eugenie Land & Development, Inc. v. BP Exploration & Production, Inc.
814 F.3d 748
5th Cir.2016Background
- BP entered a court‑supervised settlement (post‑Deepwater Horizon) providing compensation to landowners in a defined "Wetlands Real Property Claim Zone"; claim forms and documentary proof (tax assessment, deed) are required.
- The settlement’s online portal uses a parcel database that may be incomplete; the agreement allows claimants to document a parcel’s actual presence in the Claim Zone if the database is wrong.
- After a paid claim triggers a six‑month window to submit any additional claims, the Claims Administrator adopted Policy 251 permitting deadline relief only for "excusable neglect" under Rule 60(b), with a 60‑day filing window for relief requests.
- Claimants (Willkomm, Schoenberger, Bein) own seven parcels. In July 2012 Kevin Schoenberger entered parcel numbers into the portal; two parcels were shown eligible and claims submitted; five were shown ineligible and no parcel‑eligibility requests or mailed claims were filed before the six‑month deadline expired.
- In 2014 Claimants discovered co‑owners had been paid for two of the previously ineligible parcels, attempted to submit claims but were blocked by the closed six‑month window, and sought district‑court relief to deem the July 2012 submissions timely or to excuse the deadline.
- The district court denied relief; the Fifth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Claimants had "submitted" claims for the five parcels in July 2012 | Schoenberger: entering parcel numbers into portal constituted submission (or portal’s ineligibility message excused not filing) | BP/Administrator: settlement requires actual claim forms; portal notice does not constitute submission | Court: Not submitted — settlement requires claim form; claimants failed to use available procedures to document eligibility |
| Whether courts should excuse missed six‑month deadline under Policy 251 / Rule 60(b) | Claimants: deadline relief should be granted because portal misled them and thus their neglect was excusable | BP/Administrator: claimants had notice portal could be inaccurate; they failed to seek parcel documentation; not excusable neglect | Court: Denied relief — failure to use available documentation procedures is not excusable neglect under Rule 60(b) |
| Whether denial of portal access and lack of a "final determination" violated due process | Claimants: portal prevented final determination and appeal, denying due process | BP/Administrator: enforcing a properly noticed deadline does not violate due process | Court: Argument forfeited (not raised below); in any event, enforcement of a noticed deadline does not generally violate due process; claim fails |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Deepwater Horizon, 739 F.3d 790 (5th Cir.) (background on settlement program)
- Wooten v. McDonald Transit Assocs., Inc., 788 F.3d 490 (5th Cir. 2015) (explaining standards for excusable neglect under Rule 60(b))
- Cent. Sw. Tex. Dev., L.L.C. v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 780 F.3d 296 (5th Cir. 2015) (issue‑preservation and forfeiture principles)
- Wainwright v. Torna, 455 U.S. 586 (1982) (enforcement of a properly noticed deadline does not generally create a due process violation)