Eastern District of Louisiana: Judge Fallon and Judge Barbier Agree With Judge Zainey’s Ruling in Plaquemines Parish v. Total

Eastern District of Louisiana: Judge Fallon and Judge Barbier Agree With Judge Zainey’s Ruling in Plaquemines Parish v. Total

By: Maria Aurora P. Deguzman

Edited By: Brooke E. Michiels

Plaquemines Parish v. Palm Energy Offshore, LLC, No. CIV.A. 13-6709, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67720 (E.D. La. May 26, 2015).

Plaquemines Parish v. June Energy, Inc., No. CIV.A. 13-6712, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67722 (E.D. La. May 26, 2015).

Borne v. Chevron U.S.A. Holdings, Inc., No. CIV.A. 15-631, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68329 (E.D. La. May 26, 2015).

These cases were filed in state court in Louisiana against various oil and gas exploration and production companies for environmental damage that allegedly occurred in Plaquemines Parish. In Borne, the plaintiffs were individuals who possessed joint ownership interests in three tracts of land located in Jefferson and Plaquemines Parishes. In the cases involving Plaquemines Parish, Plaquemines Parish sued on behalf of itself and the State of Louisiana.Both lawsuits alleged that (1) the defendant companies’ operations were in violation of the State and Local Coastal Resources Management Act of 1978 (“SLCRMA”), and (2) that this violation of SLCRMA caused substantial damage to land as well as bodies of water in both Plaquemines and Jefferson Parishes’ coastal zone. The plaintiffs in Borne also claimed several additional causes of action pursuant to Louisiana state law including: negligence, strict liability, public nuisance, private nuisance, and third-party beneficiary breach of contract.The defendants in all three cases removed the cases to the Eastern District of Louisiana, alleging at least two bases for federal jurisdiction: (1) federal question jurisdiction pursuant to the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA), and (2) admiralty jurisdiction. In the Plaquemines Parish cases, the defendants also alleged diversity jurisdiction. In response, the plaintiffs in both cases filed motions to remand.These cases were among twenty-eight separate actions that addressed the same issue but were never consolidated; all were stayed until Judge Zainey ruled on the motion to remand. Judge Zainey granted a motion to remand in Plaquemines Parish v. Total on December 1, 2014, finding no basis for federal jurisdiction. The remaining judges agreed with Judge Zainey’s decision and subsequently granted a motion to remand in each of the other cases.In Plaquemines Parish, the defendants argued “that the central question is whether the suit for damages to the Parish’s land, based on the construction and maintenance of an Outer Continental Shelf (“OCS”) pipeline, triggers OCSLA jurisdiction.” The defendants claimed that it did because the pipelines at issue carry minerals from the OCS to shore; furthermore, OCSLA does not require that the injury-inducing activity or the injury occur on the OCS in order to trigger OCSLA jurisdiction.The Court was not persuaded by this argument because “precedent demands that there… be an ‘operation on the [OCS]’ to satisfy the first element of OCSLA jurisdiction,” and there was no such operation in this case. The alleged permit violations were wholly within Louisiana’s Coastal Zone. Allowing OCSLA jurisdiction to apply in any claim concerning a pipe that transports minerals originating from the OCS might open the floodgates to OCSLA jurisdiction far beyond its intended purpose.The court in Plaquemines Parish emphasized that it rejected the argument that 28 U.S.C. § 1441, as amended, effectively nullifies the savings-to-suitors clause and no longer requires a non-admiralty source of jurisdiction to remove a general maritime case. Upholding the savings-to-suitors clause requires the non-removability of maritime claims that do not have another, non-admiralty, source of jurisdiction. For these reasons, the court remanded both of the Plaquemines Parish cases.In Borne, the court rejected removability to federal court on the same basis as the Plaquemines Parish cases.  It also rejected the defendants’ argument that OCSLA jurisdiction applied because they basically raised no new arguments on that matter. As such, the court found no reason to stray from its prior holdings on the matter. Interestingly, the defendants in Borne argued that federal question jurisdiction applied because the plaintiffs would need to rely on federal law in order to establish that they had breached a duty prior to 1978. However, the court found that no federal issue was raised in the case. The matter lacked federal question jurisdiction and remand was appropriate.