848 F.3d 407 (5th Cir. 2017), 16-30102, Claimant ID 100212278 v. BP Exploration & Production, Inc.

Docket Nº:16-30102, 16-30117, 16-30598, 16-30599, 16-30606
Citation:848 F.3d 407
Opinion Judge:PER CURIAM:
Party Name:CLAIMANT ID 100212278, Requesting Party - Appellant, v. BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INCORPORATED; BP AMERICA PRODUCTION COMPANY; BP, P.L.C., Objecting Parties - Appellees
Attorney:For CLAIMANT ID 100212278, Requesting Party - Appellant: Jeffrey W. Willis, Esq., Rogers & Hardin, L.L.P., Atlanta, GA. For BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INCORPORATED, BP AMERICA PRODUCTION COMPANY, BP, P.L.C., Objecting Party - Appellee: Richard Cartier Godfrey, Esq., Kirkland & Ellis, L.L.P., Ch...
Judge Panel:Before REAVLEY, ELROD, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
Case Date:February 09, 2017
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 407

848 F.3d 407 (5th Cir. 2017)

CLAIMANT ID 100212278, Requesting Party - Appellant,

v.

BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INCORPORATED; BP AMERICA PRODUCTION COMPANY; BP, P.L.C., Objecting Parties - Appellees

Nos. 16-30102, 16-30117, 16-30598, 16-30599, 16-30606

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

February 9, 2017

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.

For CLAIMANT ID 100212278, Requesting Party - Appellant: Jeffrey W. Willis, Esq., Rogers & Hardin, L.L.P., Atlanta, GA.

For BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INCORPORATED, BP AMERICA PRODUCTION COMPANY, BP, P.L.C., Objecting Party - Appellee: Richard Cartier Godfrey, Esq., Kirkland & Ellis, L.L.P., Chicago, IL; Jeffrey Bossert Clark, Sr., Esq., Kirkland & Ellis, L.L.P., Washington, DC; Don Keller Haycraft, Liskow & Lewis, P.L.C., New Orleans, LA; James Andrew Langan, Esq., Kirkland & Ellis, L.L.P., Chicago, IL; Martin R. Martos, II, Kirkland & Ellis, L.L.P., Chicago, IL.

Before REAVLEY, ELROD, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

The appellant is a company that filed Business Economic Loss claims under the Deepwater Horizon Economic and Property Damages Settlement Agreement on behalf of five of its stores. Each claim was denied by the Court Supervised Settlement Program, and each denial was affirmed by an Appeal Panel. The company sought review by the district court, which the district court denied in every case. In this consolidated appeal, the company challenges the district court's denial of discretionary review in each case. Because the district court did not abuse its discretion, we AFFIRM.

I.

This case involves BP's obligations under the Deepwater Horizon Economic and Property Damages Settlement Agreement. The appellant, which describes itself in its briefing as an automotive parts provider, sought to obtain compensation under the Settlement Agreement as a tourism business.1 Designation as a tourism business would have relieved the appellant of the need to demonstrate loss causation. However, the Court Supervised Settlement Program (CSSP) and the Appeal Panel determined that the stores were not tourism businesses and denied the claims for failure to satisfy the causation requirement.

Exhibit 2 to the Settlement Agreement defines tourism as follows: Tourism means businesses which provide services such as attracting, transporting, accommodating or catering to the needs or wants of persons traveling to, or staying in, places outside their home community. Therefore, if you are in one of the following businesses or work for such a business, you are in the Tourism Industry.

Exhibit 2 then lists forty-one North American Industry Classification System codes (NAICS codes) identifying various categories of businesses that qualify as tourism businesses.

The appellant claimed that it fell under NAICS code 452990 (All Other General Merchandise Stores), which is listed in Exhibit 2. It also argued, in the alternative, that it was a business " accommodating or catering to the needs or wants of persons traveling to, or staying in, places outside...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP