United States v. Robert Kaluza
780 F.3d 647
| 5th Cir. | 2015Background
- April 20, 2010: Blowout at the Macondo well while the Deepwater Horizon (a Transocean-chartered drilling vessel) was attached; explosion killed 11 and released large volumes of oil.
- Defendants Kaluza and Vidrine were BP well site leaders (company men) on the rig who participated in negative-pressure testing before the blowout; indictment alleges negligent decisions and failure to consult onshore engineers.
- Superseding indictment charged 23 counts: involuntary manslaughter (18 U.S.C. § 1112), seaman’s manslaughter (18 U.S.C. § 1115) for 11 victims, and negligent discharge under the Clean Water Act.
- District court dismissed the § 1115 counts for failure to charge an offense, concluding Kaluza and Vidrine were not persons covered by § 1115; the court had held OCSLA extended federal law to the rig but that ruling was not cross-appealed.
- Government appealed only the § 1115 dismissal; the Fifth Circuit affirmed, holding the statute’s first clause ("Every captain, engineer, pilot, or other person employed on any...vessel") is limited by ejusdem generis to personnel involved in marine operations/maintenance/navigation and thus does not cover BP well site leaders.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 1115 covers BP well site leaders aboard Deepwater Horizon | § 1115’s plain text (“every...other person employed on any...vessel”) includes all persons employed on the vessel, including well site leaders | The statute is ambiguous; ejusdem generis limits the general phrase to persons like captain/engineer/pilot — i.e., those charged with vessel operation, navigation, or marine maintenance — excluding drill-crew/company men | Held: § 1115 is ambiguous; applying ejusdem generis limits coverage to those involved in marine operations/maintenance/navigation; defendants are excluded |
| Whether courts should apply ejusdem generis or plain-text reading first | Gov: plain meaning is clear; canons unnecessary | Defs: canons are fundamental and may apply without first finding ambiguity | Held: Text is susceptible to two reasonable readings; ejusdem generis properly applied to resolve ambiguity |
| Whether OCSLA and extraterritoriality defeat § 1115 application on Deepwater Horizon | Gov: OCSLA extends federal law to installations on OCS (court below found rig an OCSLA situs) | Defs: rig lies outside territorial jurisdiction; § 1115 should not have extraterritorial reach | Held: Fifth Circuit declined to address OCSLA/extraterritoriality because defendants did not cross-appeal the district court’s OCSLA situs finding; issue not before the court |
| Whether rule of lenity required dismissal | Gov: no remaining ambiguity after ejusdem generis; lenity inapplicable | Defs: any lingering ambiguity must be resolved for defendants under rule of lenity | Held: Because textual indeterminacy remained and the statute is criminal, any residual ambiguity is resolved in defendants’ favor under the rule of lenity, supporting dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petrol. Co., 133 S. Ct. 1659 (2013) (presumption against extraterritorial application of federal statutes)
- United States v. O’Keefe, 426 F.3d 274 (5th Cir. 2005) (interpreting culpability language in § 1115; any degree of negligence suffices)
- Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd., 561 U.S. 247 (2010) (framework for presumption against extraterritoriality)
- United States v. Cotton, 535 U.S. 625 (2002) (distinguishing jurisdictional defects from merits questions)
- Russello v. United States, 464 U.S. 16 (1983) (disparate inclusion/exclusion of limiting language evidences congressional intent)