Levee Board Suit Against Oil Companies Dismissed

Levee Board Suit Against Oil Companies Dismissed

 By: Jena Mura

Board of Commissioners v. Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co., No. 15-30162, 2017, U.S. App. LEXIS 3865 (5th Cir. March 3, 2017); No. 15-30162, 2017 WL 874999 (5th Cir. March 3, 2017).The Board of Commissioners of Southeast Louisiana Flood Protection Authority filed a lawsuit in state court against 97 defendants involved in oil and gas exploration and production along the southern coast of the United States. The Board of Commissioners claimed that the defendant’s dredging activities caused land loss and erosion resulting in an increased storm surge risk. The Board sought recovery for negligence, strict liability, natural servitude of drain, public nuisance, private nuisance and breach of contract. As well as injunctive relief seeking the back filling of each canal defendants have dredged.Defendants removed the case to federal court and the district court denied the Board’s motion to remand the case back to state court. The defendants then moved to dismiss the case through a under FRCP 12(b)(6), claiming the Board failed to state a claim for which relief can be granted under state law. The district court granted the motion and the Board appealed.The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals found that the Board’s negligence and nuisance claims did raise federal issues, giving them appropriate federal jurisdiction. The court decided not to address the question whether maritime jurisdiction provides an independent basis for federal jurisdiction at that time.The Fifth Circuit held that the district court properly dismissed the negligence and strict liability claims because the Board failed to establish that defendants breached a duty of care. Determining that neither federal law nor Louisiana law creates a duty to protect the Board from increased flood protection costs allegedly caused by coastal erosion from defendants dredging activities, the Fifth Circuit further upheld the dismissal of both the natural servitude of drain claim and the nuisance claims due to the lack of specifics alleged in the complaint. The court said the claims were little more than simply a restatement of Louisiana law.