Failure to Comply With Pre-Trial Order in Deepwater Horizon Litigation Results in Dismissal of Claims with Prejudice
In Re: Deepwater Horizon; Barrera v. BP, P.L.C., 2018 WL 5077646 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 29408 * (5th Cir. Oct. 18, 2018)
By: Haley Guepet
Plaintiffs are Mexican individuals and associations that rely on the fishing industry for income and who were affected by the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in 2010. They are the remaining members from multi-district litigation (MDL) 2179, which was created ensure recovery of legitimate claims from appellees, British Petroleum (BP). After a series of settlements, the district court issued pre-trial order (PTO) 60, requiring all remaining unsettled claims individuals or entities to file individual lawsuits with the district court by May 2, 2016. The PTO 60 also warned that noncompliance would result in dismissal of their claim with prejudice.Plaintiffs’ attorneys filed a motion requesting a ninety (90) day extension due to the high volume of plaintiffs – 1510 – and that compliance would be impossible by the deadline. The district court granted a 14-day extension, emphasizing that no additional time would be granted. Plaintiffs then filed a second motion for extension of time. The district court did not rule on the motion; instead it issued a show cause order as to why the court should not dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims with prejudice due to noncompliance with PTO 60.Plaintiffs’ attorneys argued (1) that certain plaintiffs should be granted more time to submit the signed declaration; (2) that other plaintiffs had filed individual declarations; and (3) the plaintiffs in the mass joinder complaint needed more time because they lacked electronic means. On December 16, 2016, the district court dismissed the Plaintiffs’ claims and denied their subsequent motion for reconsideration. Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of their claims and denial of their motions.The dismissed claims and the denial of motions are subject to an abuse of discretion standard on appeal, only overturning a trial court’s decision when the ruling is based on an erroneous view of the law or assessment of evidence. In this case, the Fifth Circuit stated that dismissal with prejudice is only permissible where there is “a clear record of delay or contumacious conduct by the plaintiff” and “where lesser sanctions would not service the best interests of justice.” However, the court noted that special deference is required in the context of an MDL. For MDLs, an enforcement order pertaining to the progress of the cases is of the upmost importance for judicial efficiency.Plaintiffs’ attorneys argued that the trial court abused its discretion because it was logistically impossible to file each lawsuit individually by the deadline. However, Plaintiffs provided no evidence or documentation corroborating their explanation for delay. Moreover, the court reasoned that the district court expressly warned Plaintiffs’ attorneys that noncompliance would lead to dismissal with prejudice and that no further extension would be granted past the initial 14-day extension. The Fifth Circuity panel thus found that the Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the PTO showed a “clear record of delay.” It then analyzed whether lesser sanctions would be appropriate in the Plaintiffs’ case and then stated that it was unclear where lesser sanctions would have been appropriate based on the warnings of the district court and the clarity of the PTO. On an additional note, the panel reasoned that dismissal with prejudice was the proper remedy to prevent fraudulent lawsuits.For the above reasons, the Court held that plaintiffs’ conduct satisfied both prongs of the standard for dismissing with prejudice and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in its dismissal of the Plaintiffs’ claims.
