Claimant Id. v. BP Exploration & Production, Inc., 120518 FED5, 18-30685

Docket Nº:18-30685
Opinion Judge:PER CURIAM
Party Name:CLAIMANT ID, Requesting Party - Appellant v. BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INCORPORATED; BP AMERICA PRODUCTION COMPANY; BP, P.L.C., Objecting Parties - Appellees
Judge Panel:Before DAVIS, HAYNES, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
Case Date:December 05, 2018
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

CLAIMANT ID, Requesting Party - Appellant

v.

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

No. 18-30685

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

December 5, 2018

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana USDC No. 2:18-CV-3953

Before DAVIS, HAYNES, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM [*]

North Shore Beach, LLC ("North Shore") appeals the district court's order denying review of a rejected claim it submitted under the Deepwater Horizon Economic Property Damages Settlement program.1 Based on his mapping experts' analysis, the Claims Administrator found that North Shore's parcel of land, Lot 63A, is outside the Wetlands Real Property Claim Zone and therefore ineligible for compensation. North Shore, however, argues that it has a meritorious claim because Lot 63A seems to appear inside a qualifying, "blue-shaded portion[]" of a map in the Settlement Agreement illustrating the Wetlands claim zone. The mapping tool used to draw this map has a disclaimer stating that the depiction is for "informational purposes only, and does not constitute an official designation. . . ." The Settlement Appeal Panel adopted the Claims Administrator's finding that Lot 63A was outside the claim zone, and the district court denied review. North Shore now appeals the district court's order.

We examine the district court's denial of discretionary review for abuse of discretion.2 We ask "whether the decision not reviewed by the district court actually contradicted or misapplied the Settlement Agreement, or had the clear potential to contradict or misapply the Settlement Agreement."3

This case presents a straightforward challenge to the Claims Administrator's factual finding that Lot 63A is not within the Wetlands claim zone. The Settlement Agreement provides that a claimant must submit documentation to the Claims Administrator to show that compensation is warranted. Here, the Claims Administrator found, and the Appeal Panel affirmed, that North Shore's submissions failed to make this showing. North Shore cannot base its claim for Lot 63A on the mere fact...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP