Slaven v. American Trading Transp. Co., Inc.

• Citation: 146 F.3d 1066
• Decision Date: 18 August 1998
• Docket Number: No. 97-55293,97-55293
• Parties: , 98 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4776, 98 Daily Journal D.A.R. 6763, 98 Daily Journal D.A.R. 8869 Donald SLAVEN; Salvatore Russo; Carl Gassaway; Yeriko Nitta, D/B/A The Seacliff Motel; Salvatore Manzella; Steven Panto, Donna Panto; Heinz Pet Products Company, a division of Star-Kist Foods, Inc., a California corporation; Gregory Kuglis, and Jack Morici, On Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. AMERICAN TRADING TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, Inc., (ATTRANSCO, INC.), Defendant-Appellant, BP America, Inc., BP Oil Shipping Co., U.S.A.; BP Oil Supply Company; The Trans-Alaska Pipeline Liability Fund; Brandenburger Marine, Inc., Defendants, G. Nazzareno, Inc., et al., Claimants.
• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)

Page 1066

146 F.3d 1066

1998 A.M.C. 2136, 98 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4776,

98 Daily Journal D.A.R. 6763,

98 Daily Journal D.A.R. 8869

Donald SLAVEN; Salvatore Russo; Carl Gassaway; Yeriko

Nitta, D/B/A The Seacliff Motel; Salvatore Manzella;

Steven Panto, Donna Panto; Heinz Pet Products Company, a

division of Star-Kist Foods, Inc., a California corporation;

Gregory Kuglis, and Jack Morici, On Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. AMERICAN TRADING TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, Inc., (ATTRANSCO, INC.), Defendant-Appellant,

BP America, Inc., BP Oil Shipping Co., U.S.A.; BP Oil

Supply Company; The Trans-Alaska Pipeline

Liability Fund; Brandenburger Marine,

Inc., Defendants,

G. Nazzareno, Inc., et al., Claimants.

No. 97-55293.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted June 2, 1998.

Decided June 22, 1998.

As Amended on Denial of Rehearing and Suggestion for

Rehearing En Banc Aug. 18, 1998.

David E.R. Woolley, Mitchell F. Ducey, and Todd A. Valdes, Cogswell Woolley Nakazawa & Russell, Long Beach, California, for defendant-appellant American Trading Transportation Company, Inc.

Marc M. Seltzer, Gretchen M. Nelson, and David H. Boren, Corinblit & Seltzer, Los Angeles, California; Merrill G. Davidoff and Peter Nordberg, Berger & Montague, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for the plaintiffs-appellees.

John A. Sturgeon and Renee Rubin, White & Case, Los Angeles, California; A. Stephen Hut, Jr., Eric J. Mogilnicki, Charles A. Mendels, and Kathleen M. Miller, Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering, Washington, DC, for defendant Trans-Alaska Pipeline Liability Fund.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California; Robert J. Kelleher, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-90-00722-RJK.

Before FLETCHER, D.W. NELSON, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.

D.W. NELSON, Circuit Judge.

Plaintiffs brought a class action under the Trans-Alaska Pipeline Authorization Act ("TAPAA"), 43 U.S.C. § 1653, general maritime and admiralty laws, and California law, Cal. Harb. & Nav.Code §§ 293 & 294, alleging damages resulting from an oil spill off of Huntington Beach, California. The American Trading Transportation Company, Inc. ("Attransco"), an owner and operator of the ruptured vessel, and a defendant in plaintiffs' action, now appeals the district court's judgment approving a $1,087,500 settlement that released another defendant in the class action from liability and preserved plaintiffs' claims against Attransco. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we hold that Attransco waived its right to appeal.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On February 7, 1990, approximately one and one-half miles off the coast of Huntington Beach, California, the hull of the steamship American Trader was punctured by its own anchor while attempting to hook up to a mooring buoy. As a result of the rupture, the ship released more than 200,000 gallons of crude oil into the Pacific Ocean. Oil from the spill spread over a substantial area and washed ashore in Huntington Beach, Newport Beach, and adjacent nearby coastal areas.

On February 13, a class of plaintiffs composed of fishermen, hotel owners, motel owners, vacation homeowners, divers, local businesses, tour boat operators, and cannery operators (collectively "plaintiffs") filed this action in the United States District Court for the Central District of California against Attransco, BP America, Inc., BP Oil Shipping Co., U.S.A., BP Oil Supply Co., American Trading and Production Corp., Golden West Refining Co., and Brandenburger Marine, Inc., and the Trans-Alaska Pipeline Liability Fund (the "Fund") (collectively "defendants"). Plaintiffs' complaint asserts claims for economic damages under TAPAA, 43 U.S.C. § 1653(c), general maritime and admiralty laws, and Sections 293 and 294 of the California Harbor and Navigation Code.

Attransco, BP Oil Shipping Co., U.S.A., BP America, Inc., BP Oil Supply Co., and the American Trading Production Corp. are all owners and operators of the American Trader within the meaning of TAPAA. Golden West Refining Company owns and operates an offshore mooring facility in the waters off of Huntington Beach, and Brandenburger Marine, Inc. contracts to supply mooring master services for piloting vessels, including the American Trader, into Golden West's facility. The Fund is a non-profit corporate entity established pursuant to TAPAA that may sue and be sued in its own name. 43 U.S.C. § 1653(c)(4). The Fund consists of an accumulation of money raised by taxing trans-Alaska oil. 43 U.S.C. § 1653(c)(5).

According to TAPAA, liability for damages resulting from the transportation of trans-Alaska pipeline oil is divided between the Fund and the vessel's owner and operator as follows:

Strict liability for all claims arising out of any one incident shall not exceed $100,000,000. The owner and operator of the vessel shall be jointly and severally liable for the first $14,000,000 of such claims that are allowed.... The Fund shall be liable for the balance of the claims that are allowed up to $100,000,000.... The Fund shall expeditiously pay claims under this subsection, including such $14,000,000, if the owner or operator of a vessel has not paid any such claim within 90 days after such claim has been submitted to such owner or operator.

43 U.S.C. § 1653(c)(3).

Following the service of plaintiffs' complaint, the Fund filed a motion to dismiss the action alleging, inter alia, that it was not On May 11, 1992, plaintiffs filed their fourth amended complaint, which is the operative pleading in this litigation. On May 25, 1994, after extensive briefing and argument, the district court certified the following plaintiff class (the "Class"), pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3):

liable under TAPAA for the American Trader oil spill because TAPAA only creates liability for ships that load their oil in Alaska, and not for ships, like the American Trader, that receive Alaskan oil from other carriers. On February 25, 1991, the district court denied the Fund's motion to dismiss, holding, inter alia, that TAPAA applies to the American Trader oil spill. See Holifield v. BP America, Inc., 786 F.Supp. 840, 847 (C.D.Cal.1991). Following an appeal by the Fund, this court affirmed the district court's ruling. See Slaven v. BP America, Inc., 973 F.2d 1468, 1478 (9th Cir.1992).

All persons and entities owning, leasing or having an interest in real and/or personal property or having an ownership interest in commercial enterprises or working within or about the area or areas affected by the rupture of the hull of the American Trader on February 7, 1990, and the resulting oil spill and clean-up effort, who have suffered or will suffer economic damage as a result of the spill and/or the ensuing clean-up effort.

The Class then caused a Notice of Conditional Certification of Class Action to be mailed to potential members of the Class and published on two occasions in six local newspapers.

On December 5, 1995, after more than a year of settlement negotiations, Class plaintiffs filed with the district court a settlement agreement with defendants BP America, Inc., BP Oil Shipping Co., U.S.A., BP Oil Supply Co., and the Fund. The settlement agreement provides that BP America, Inc., BP Oil Shipping Co., U.S.A., and BP Oil Supply Co. (collectively the "BP defendants") will pay $1,087,500, and the Fund will pay $1,087,500, in return for being released from all Class claims arising out of the Huntington Beach oil spill. The settlement also states that "[t]he foregoing release ... shall not modify, limit, bar, dismiss, release or discharge in any respect, any rights, claims, causes of action or actions of any of the Plaintiffs or members of the Settlement Class against the Non-Settling Defendants, or any of their insurers."

In March 1996, Attransco filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that because it had already paid the $14 million required by 43 U.S.C. § 1653(c), the proposed settlement absolved Attransco of any further liability for damages arising from the oil spill. Relying on Attransco's representation that it had paid the $14 million in May 1990 in accordance with TAPAA's requirement, the district court orally granted summary judgment in favor of Attransco. However, a few weeks later, after reviewing plaintiffs' objection to the proposed summary judgment order, the district court decided that Attransco had failed to supply evidence supporting its claim that it had paid the requisite $14 million. The court therefore vacated its informal order and ordered Attransco "to offer proof that the $14 million TAPAA liability has been extinguished." At the same time, the court denied Attransco's summary judgment motion with regard to plaintiffs' state law claims, holding that the proposed settlement did not relieve Attransco of any state law liability resulting from the oil spill.

On May 13, 1996, Attransco filed an Offer of Proof Regarding Attransco's Satisfaction of $14 Million TAPAA Liability, in which Attransco referenced, but failed to produce, an arbitrator's ruling that supposedly validated its counsel's records indicating that it had paid the requisite $14 million. The district court concluded that the proffered evidence did not establish that the arbitrator "actually and necessarily determined that Attransco has paid over $14 million in TAPAA cognizable claims." "Due to the vagueness of Attransco's offer of proof," the district court decided to deny Attransco's motion for summary judgment with respect to plaintiffs' TAPAA claim.

On July 29, 1996, the district court filed a Class Notice and Settlement Hearing Order, which preliminarily approved the plaintiffs' settlement with the Fund and with the BP defendants. Notice of the settlement was mailed to over 10,000 potential Class members and published in eight local periodicals.

On September 10, 1996, Class plaintiffs filed their motion for...