Mabile v. BP, P. L.C.
| Decision Date | 22 September 2016 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO. 11-1783 SECTION "G"(2) |
| Parties | PIERRE MABILE v. BP, P.L.C., et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Louisiana |
In this litigation, Plaintiff Pierre Mabile ("Mabile") alleges that he designed and manufactured a prototype (the "Mabile Cap") to stop the flow of oil during the well blowout on Deepwater Horizon, and that Defendants BP p.l.c., BP Exploration & Production, Inc., BP America Production Company, and BP America, Inc. (collectively "BP") used his design without compensating him. Mabile brings claims of conversion, unfair trade practices, and unjust enrichment against BP. Pending before the Court is BP's "Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint for Failure to State a Claim."1 Having considered the motion, the memoranda in support, the memoranda in opposition, and the applicable law, the Court will deny the motion.
In his amended complaint, Mabile alleges that he designed and manufactured a prototype (the "Mabile Cap") to stop the flow of oil during the well blowout on Deepwater Horizon.2 He alleges that his design contains a unique "flange on top of a flange" design and "contains a valve to allow the oil to either be piped to the surface or to cement the well in."3 According to Mabile, on June 15, 2010, he wrote a letter generally describing the Mabile Cap's functionality, and submitted it, along with a schematic drawing of the device, to BP through its website dedicated to soliciting ideas on how to stop the oil spill.4 The letter informed BP that a demonstration of the Mabile Cap was going to be held on June 19, 2010, in Grand Isle, Louisiana.5 Mabile also submitted this letter to BP's office in Houston, Texas.6
Mabile alleges that he demonstrated the Mabile Cap on June 19, 2010, for two BP engineers, Jason French ("French") and Thomas Pearce ("Pearce").7 According to Mabile, French then immediately called another BP engineer, Al Ledet ("Ledet"), who requested that Mabile meet him later that day in Houma, Louisiana, to perform another demonstration of the Mabile Cap.8 Mabile alleges that he performed a demonstration for Ledet and United States Coast Guard engineer, Kurt Hansen ("Hansen"), the same day.9 Mabile states that Hansen, though a Coast Guard engineer, was acting on behalf of BP as an engineer and/or technical consultant to cap the oil flow.10 Mabile recalls that Hansen called his idea the best design he had ever seen for capping the oil spill.11 He alleges that, per Hansen's request, he left a schematic drawing of the Mabile Cap with Hansen and later emailed a digital copy of the drawing to Hansen on or around June 22, 2010.12 Again, per Hansen's request, Mabile alleges that he sent Hansen a DVD of the Mabile Cap demonstration.13
According to Mabile, on or around July 11, 2010, BP began installing a "flange on top of a flange" device on the Deepwater Horizon oil spill that was "consistent with and identical to the form and function of the Mabile Cap."14 On or around July 12, 2010, Mabile alleges that BP installed a sealing cap assembly ("the 3-ram Capping Stack"), which, like the Mabile Cap, was "used to plug the wellhead and allow oil to continue to flow through valves to vessels or other infrastructure."15 He states that on July 15, 2010, the wellhead was capped and oil ceased gushing into the Gulf of Mexico.16 Mabile argues that BP used his design to cap the oil well and has failed to acknowledge or compensate him for its use of his invention.17
Mabile originally filed his petition for damages in the 32nd Judicial District Court for the Parish of Terrebonne.18 BP removed the case to this Court on July 22, 2011.19 This case was previously consolidated with MDL No. 2179 before Section "J" of this Court.20 Mabile filed a motion to sever his action from the multi-district litigation, which was granted on October 16, 2015.21 Mabile filed an amended complaint on December 7, 2015, alleging claims of conversion, unfair trade practices under Louisiana's Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law ("LUTPA"),22 and unjust enrichment.23
BP filed the instant motion on December 24, 2015.24 Mabile filed his opposition on January 12, 2016.25 With leave of Court, BP filed a reply on January 20, 2016.26 The Court heard oral argument on the motion on February 17, 2016.27 Following oral argument, BP filed a "Notice of Supplemental Authority" on February 19, 2016.28 On February 19, Mabile also filed a "Post-Hearing Submission in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss."29 With leave of Court, BP filed a response to Mabile's post-hearing submission on March 1, 2016.30
BP presents three broad arguments in support of its motion to dismiss: (1) that Mabile fails to plausibly allege certain "essential" elements necessary to bring a state law "use-of-idea" claim;31 (2) that Mabile fails to plausibly state a conversion, unfair trade practices, or unjust enrichment claim based on individual deficiencies in each of Mabile's claims;32 and (3) that each of Mabile's claims are preempted by federal patent law.33 Additionally, as a preliminary matter, BP requests that this Court take judicial notice of the MDL 2179 Court's Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law from the MDL Phase II trial to consider alongside the pleadings when deciding BP's motion to dismiss.34
As an initial matter, BP argues that the Court may properly take judicial notice and consider the MDL 2179 Court's Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law from the MDL Phase II trial ("MDL Phase II Findings") to decide if Mabile has failed to state his claims under a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.35 BP argues that it is permissible here for this Court to utilize the "items in the record of the case, related cases and matters of public record."36 BP represents that, in the Fifth Circuit, this Court "may take judicial notice of the record in prior related proceedings, and draw reasonable inferences therefrom."37 BP states that both parties designated the MDL Phase II Findings to be part of the record in this matter when it was severed from MDL 2179, and that Mabile attached two exhibits from the MDL Phase II Findings to his amended complaint.38 Therefore, according to BP, the Court can properly consider the MDL Phase II Findings when determining BP's motion to dismiss Mabile's claims.39
In support of its motion to dismiss, BP first argues that because all three of Mabile's claims are premised upon BP's alleged use of Mabile's idea when BP created the 3-Ram Capping Stack, Mabile must additionally allege that his idea was (1) novel, (2) disclosed in confidence, and (3) used by BP.40 BP bases its argument on Official Airlines Schedule Info. Serv., Inc. v. E. Air Lines, Inc., a Fifth Circuit case affirming a Florida federal district court's order granting summary judgment against a plaintiff's claims for alleged appropriation of plaintiff's idea.41 There, the Fifth Circuit, citing several other circuits,42 held that to find a defendant liable for the alleged appropriation of an idea, a plaintiff must satisfy the necessary prerequisite elements of novelty, confidential relationship, and use of the idea by the defendant for his concept "to be entitled to protection as a property right."43
BP argues that Mabile fails to plausibly allege any of these essential elements. First, BP states that the amended complaint fails to allege that any of Mabile's disclosures were made in confidence or that BP offered to keep his idea confidential.44 BP argues that Mabile could not impose a confidential relationship on BP "by his gratuitous and unilateral act" of voluntarily disclosing his idea to BP.45 Second, BP argues that Mabile has not plausibly alleged that BP used any features of Mabile's invention.46 In particular, BP asserts that though the amended complaint states there were two unique features of the "Mabile Cap" design—the "flange on top of a flange" feature and a valve designed to allow oil to be piped to the surface or to cement the well in47—Mabile has not plausibly alleged that BP used either.48
Finally, BP, citing the MDL Phase II Findings,49 argues that Mabile has not plausibly alleged that his idea was novel.50 In support of this contention, BP points to McIntyre v. BP Exploration & Production, Inc., where another plaintiff alleged BP appropriated his well-capping idea.51 There, BP states that the district court found that the only similarity plaintiff's design had with BP's cap was the use of a "shutoff valve" that allowed oil to continue to flow, and held that the use of valves was not sufficiently novel to support plaintiff's claims.52 Here, BP asserts Mabile's submission also "amounts to little more than the idea of attaching valves to the Macondo well to shut off the flow of hydrocarbons," and thus lacked novelty.53
Next, BP argues that Mabile's conversion, unfair trade practices, and unjust enrichment claims each suffer from particular deficiencies that require the Court to dismiss all three claims.
BP argues that, under Louisiana law, conversion only applies to goods and chattel, while Mabile's claim is based upon the alleged use of intangible, intellectual property.54 According to BP, Louisiana state courts repeatedly define the tort of conversion in terms of goods and chattel.55 BP represents that several federal district courts in Louisiana have held the same; for example, a court in the Middle District of Louisiana held that conversion "requires unlawful interference with chattel," while a court in the Western District of Louisiana has stated that Louisiana limits conversion claims of intangible property rights to those that "are traditionally merged into or identified with some document," such as "stock certificates and bonds."56...
To continue reading
Request your trial