Perez v. BP, P.L.C.
713 F. App'x 360
5th Cir.2018Background
- Appellants are Mexican cooperatives of fishermen and members who filed claims in the Deepwater Horizon MDL (MDL 2179).
- The MDL court entered Pretrial Order 60 (PTO 60), a case-management order restricting remaining plaintiffs from filing multi-plaintiff complaints (including class actions) after years of multi-plaintiff practice.
- Despite PTO 60, Appellants filed four putative class actions covering nearly 24,000 class members; the district court rejected those filings and ordered single-plaintiff complaints.
- Appellants failed to comply with the court’s repeated opportunities and deadlines, and the district court dismissed their claims with prejudice.
- On reconsideration, Appellants argued PTO 60 conflicted with Shady Grove (they claimed a right to bring class claims under Rule 23); the district court denied reconsideration and the Fifth Circuit reviewed for abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether PTO 60 unlawfully deprived plaintiffs of the right to pursue class actions under Rule 23 | Shady Grove gives plaintiffs an absolute right to file class claims under Rule 23 despite a district court’s case-management order | Shady Grove concerned state law limiting Rule 23 in diversity cases and does not limit a court’s case-management discretion; failure to follow PTO 60 justified dismissal | Court held PTO 60 is a procedural case-management order and did not conflict with Shady Grove; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether the district court abused its discretion by dismissing claims for noncompliance with PTO 60 | Appellants argued dismissal impermissibly prevented Rule 23 class claims | Appellees argued district courts have broad docket-management authority to enforce orders and dismiss for noncompliance | Court found no abuse of discretion; district court properly managed MDL docket and dismissed for noncompliance |
| Whether Appellants waived the Shady Grove argument by delay | Appellants raised the Shady Grove claim only after failing to comply and after dismissal | Appellees argued the argument was untimely and effectively sandbagged the court | Court noted waiver concerns but considered the argument on the merits; waiver did not change outcome |
| Scope of Shady Grove’s holding as applied to district-court case-management orders | Shady Grove prevents state statutes from restricting Rule 23 in diversity cases | Appellees contended Shady Grove does not restrict judge’s procedural case-management authority | Court held Shady Grove does not bar reasonable case-management limits on multi-plaintiff devices years into a complex MDL |
Key Cases Cited
- Shady Grove Orthopedic Assocs., P.A. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 559 U.S. 393 (2010) (held a state statute may not limit availability of Rule 23 class actions in diversity cases)
- Garcia v. Woman’s Hosp. of Tex., 143 F.3d 227 (5th Cir. 1998) (standard of review for district court management decisions)
- Sims v. ANR Freight Sys., Inc., 77 F.3d 846 (5th Cir. 1996) (district court’s authority to dismiss for failure to obey orders)
- Woodson v. Surgitek, Inc., 57 F.3d 1406 (5th Cir. 1995) (affirming dismissal for litigation misconduct/noncompliance)
- In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 545 F.3d 304 (5th Cir. 2008) (abuse-of-discretion test explained)
- McClure v. Ashcroft, 335 F.3d 404 (5th Cir. 2003) (quoting standards for abuse of discretion)
- Stern v. Marshall, 564 U.S. 462 (2011) (parties may waive claims by failing to timely assert them)