Another unfolding disaster: Legal maneuvering may situate Gulf oil spill litigation in Houston

[Are_grits_groceries]

The 19th century maritime law that Transocean Ltd. cited in filing a lawsuit to limit its liability in the April 20 explosion of its Deepwater Horizon rig could also give the companies involved in the disaster an edge to move all the litigation surrounding the incident to Texas.

On May 13, Transocean filed a proceeding in Houston under an outmoded 1851 law known as the Limitation of Shipowner's Liability Act to limit its legal exposure to $26.8 million, or the value of the sunken rig and whatever freight it was carrying. The limitation of liability act also allows a vessel owner to consolidate all litigation over a shipping accident to a venue of its choosing, and like a bankruptcy filing, halts all proceedings in other courts.

In maritime law, a rig is considered a vessel. Attorneys say it's an uphill battle for vessel owners to successfully limit their liability in a such a proceeding, so the primary reason for filing may be to nudge the massive litigation that is expected over the rig explosion and oil leak to Houston.

"I think there was a considered thought process on behalf of BP and Transocean to hometown the litigation and do anything that they could do to get the litigation in Houston and out of Louisiana," said Scott Bickford, who filed the first lawsuit the day after the explosion in federal court in New Orleans on behalf of the family of a worker who was killed. "Why is this thing in Texas other than the fact that the wrong-doers are there? This is a terrible situation.
<snip>
The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation will meet in Boise, Idaho, on July 29 to consider arguments from both sides about where the proceedings should be held, and is expected to make a decision within a few weeks of the gathering.

But as Transocean's proceeding moves forward in Houston to determine whether the company is eligible limit its liability, all depositions and discovery of facts will take place within the context of that suit. As work on the Transocean case proceeds in Houston, it could preempt the work of the panel of federal judges or help make the case that Houston has already become the nucleus of the litigation.

******"The center of the entire litigation will move away from Louisiana to a state that has absolutely no damage. The legal implications are you get Texas justice for Louisiana," Bickford said.******

In Houston, Judge Keith Ellison has already stayed all legal proceedings involving Transocean because of Tranocean's suit. On Tuesday morning, Ellison will hold a status conference to clarify issues related to the stays and to set a date for a hearing on motions filed by Bickford to dismiss the limitation of liability proceeding or move it to Louisiana. Attorneys representing fishers and the Louisiana Environmental Action Network have made similar requests.

There's much more:http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oil-spill/index.ssf/2010/05/legal_maneuvering_may_situate.html

This is a travesty and a mockery of justice. This is how and why BP and others will try to evade a lot of monetary damages, and they might get away with it. If Congress has to act to overrule this, the Republicans will block it.

I was watching after the first move with the injunction by Judge Ellison. The other shoe has dropped. They also probably have more shoes than Imelds Marcos to use.

[TreasonousBastard]

1. OK, just how chickenshit can the complaints get? Limitation of liability is...

a standard legal approach to any maritime liability claim and any lawyer after a reasonable night's sleep will petition for it.

However, the petition is normally denied when unseaworthiness is found and it's really, really easy to find unseaworthiness-- the rig blowing up might even be prima facie evidence of it unless they find out a meteor hit it. This is why one of the lawyers quoted in the article mentions he's rarely seen the limitation granted.

All of this is being essentially run by the lawyers hired by their P&I club-- the insurance will pay most of the claims, but the policy specifically says it won't if the insured sticks his nose in too deeply. If the rig has typical vessel insurance, the hull insurance will pay for the rig and the P&I insurance will pay for most of the liability. I've been away from the business for a while, but back then TOVALOP and CRISTOL paid for the oil cleanup.

(If you really knew about this stuff, you might bitch about the possibility that the reinsurers could possibly end up having your car or homeowners premiums raised to help pay for this mess.)

Moving the lawsuits to Houston? Big fucking deal. Are we supposed to believe that a judge in Louisiana is going to hit them harder than a judge in Texas because maybe his brother owns a shrimp trawler? Everything will be appealed, so how about whining about the circuit court that will ultimately decide?

[Are_grits_groceries]

2. If you read the article,

you will find that a lot of conservation groups and others oppose this. Would you please call them up and explain why this is 'chickenshit'? They have dealt with these courts and issues for years. They probably know what a change to Houston would mean. That is why I take their moves seriously. Filing suit for shits and giggles just fills their heads these days.

"Appellate courts do not try cases, have juries, witnesses, or court reporters. They review actions or decisions of the trial courts by reviewing the record on questions of law or allegations of procedural error. In carrying out this review, the appellate courts are restricted to the evidence and exhibits presented at the trial court level."

I believe they are trying to weigh in at this level for a valid reason. Appellate courts consider what is before them when reviewing an appeal. Amicus briefs can be filed.

"Most amicus briefs are filed late in the process of litigation, when the case is before the U.S. Supreme Court, a federal Court of Appeal, or a state supreme court. That may be too late to have the maximum influence. While amicus briefs are rare in trial courts, it makes sense for an amicus to try to get a favorable ruling in a trial court, since appellate judges are generally reluctant to reverse a decision of a trial court. Further, appellate courts only consider issues of law that were presented, or preserved for appeal, by parties at trial. An amicus can consult with the attorney for a party and suggest additional legal theories that the party may want to present at trial."
http://www.rbs2.com/amicus.htm

Your chickenshit may be another man's fertilizer.

[aquart]

3. And then we sell Texas to Mexico for $1.