Slaven v. Bp America, Inc.
| Decision Date | 21 March 1997 |
| Docket Number | No. CV 91-0334.,No. CV 90-0733.,No. CV 91-3363.,No. CV 90-2619.,No. CV 91-0515.,No. CV 90-0722 RJK (JRx).,CV 90-0722 RJK (JRx).,CV 90-0733.,CV 90-2619.,CV 91-0334.,CV 91-0515.,CV 91-3363. |
| Citation | 958 F.Supp. 1472 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Central District of California |
| Parties | Donald SLAVEN; Salvatore Russo; Carl Gassaway; Yeriko Nitta, d/b/a The Seacliff Motel; Salvatore Manzella; Steven Panto and 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, v. BP AMERICA, INC., BP Oil Shipping Co., U.S.A.; BP Oil Supply Company; American Trading and Transportation Company; The Trans-Alaska Pipeline Liability Fund; Golden West Refining Company; and Brandenburger Marine, Inc., Defendants. |
Marc M. Seltzer, Christina A. Snyder, Gretchen M. Nelson, Corinblit & Seltzer, Los Angeles, CA, Merrill G. Davidoff, Daniel Berger, Peter Nordberg, Berger & Montague, P.C., Philadelphia, PA, Stephen D. Oestreich, Wolf, Popper, Ross, Wolf & Jones, New York City, for Donald Slaven, et al.
Howard D. Sacks, San Pedro, CA, for Branko Sindicich, et al.
John S. Gray, Law Offices of John S. Gray, Newport Beach, CA, for Newport Sailing Club, Inc.
Fred J. DiBernardo, San Pedro, CA, George V. Allen, Jr., Jeffrey L. Yablon, Maryelena Pardo, Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge, Washington, DC, for State Fish Company, Inc., et al.
James H. Ackerman, Long Beach, CA, Gail Hutton, City Attorney, Huntington Beach, CA, for City of Huntington Beach.
John Buttolph, Santa Barbara, CA, for Peter Guglielmo and Aneillo Guglielmo.
Phillip D. Kohn, City Attorney, Rutan & Tucker, Costa Mesa, CA, for the City of Laguna Beach.
Joseph M. Murphy, Balboa Island, CA, for Jack Morici.
Gregory W. Stepanicich, City of Seal Beach, CA, Quinn M. Barrow, Michael G. Colantuono, Richards, Watson & Gershon, Los Angeles, CA, for City of Seal Beach.
Dennis J. Kelly, Annette Barlow, Kelly, Cox, Wootton, Griffin, Gill & Sherburne, San Francisco, CA, Nicholas Chrisos, County of Orange, Santa Ana, CA, for Steve P. Rados, Inc.
Robert H. Burnham, Robin Flory, City of Newport Beach, Newport Beach, CA, for City of Newport Beach.
Thomas M. Crehan, Fishermen's Cooperative Association, Palos Verdes Peninsula, CA, for G. Mazzareno, Inc., et al.
Philip A. Berns, Warren A. Schneider, Robert R. Klotz, U.S. Department of Justice, San Francisco, CA, for United States of America.
Michael R. Leslie, Mary Newcombe, Hedges & Caldwell, Los Angeles, CA, for People of the State of California ex rel. Department of Fish and Game, Department of Parks and Recreation, California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region, State Coastal Conservancy, and State Lands Commission.
A. Stephen Hut, Jr., Charles A. Mendels, Eric Mogilnicki, Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering, Washington, DC, Francis J. MacLaughlin, White & Case, Los Angeles, CA, for The Trans-Alaska Pipeline Liability Fund.
Robert E. Coppola, William P. Barry, Penny M. Costa, Baker & Hostetler, Long Beach, CA, William P. Barry, Robert E. Coppola, Penny M. Costa, Baker & Hostetler, Los Angeles, CA, for BP Oil Shipping Company, USA; BP Oil Supply Company; and BP America, Inc.
Erich P. Wise, Nicholas S. Politis, Flynn, Delich & Wise, Long Beach, CA, for Golden West Refining Company.
Carlton E. Russell, Joseph N. Mirkovich, Russell & Mirkovich, Long Beach, CA, for Brandenburger Marine, Inc.
Daniel E. Lungren, Charles W. Getz, IV, Jan S. Stevens, Sylvia Cano Hale, Office of the Attorney General, Los Angeles, CA, Linus Masouredis, Sara Russell, Office of the Attorney General, State of California, Oakland, CA, for State of California.
David E. R. Woolley, Blake W. Larkin, Todd A. Valdes, Williams, Woolley, Cogswell, Nakazawa & Russell, Long Beach, CA, for Attransco, Inc.
ORDER AS TO (1) MOTION OF BP ENTITIES FOR A GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT DETERMINATION AND FOR AN ORDER BARRING CLAIMS FOR CONTRIBUTION AND IMPLIED INDEMNITY UNDER STATE AND MARITIME LAW; (2) MOTION OF CLASS PLAINTIFFS' FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WITH DEFENDANTS BP ENTITIES; AND (3) APPLICATION OF CLASS PLAINTIFFS FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF COSTS AND EXPENSES
On October 21, 1996, this court heard oral argument by all parties as to a motion for good faith settlement determination and for an order barring claims for contribution brought by BP America, Inc., BP Oil Shipping Co., U.S.A., and BP Oil Supply Co. (collectively the "BP entities"). The hearing had been scheduled for September 30, 1996, but was continued at the request of all parties. This motion was for a good faith determination was filed after the BP entities and the Class Plaintiffs had signed a Settlement Agreement on various dates in November, 1995 (the "Settlement Agreement"). Also scheduled for the hearing, and still under submission, is the Class Plaintiffs' related motion for final approval of the settlement agreement with the BP entities and the Class Plaintiffs' application for reimbursement of costs and expenses. This motion (the "BP motion") was supported by the Class Plaintiffs and opposed by co-defendants American Trading and Transportation Company ("ATTRANSCO") and Golden West Refining Company ("Golden West" and, collectively, the "non-settling defendants").
After questioning by the court as to the applicability of state settlement law, the BP entities and the Class Plaintiffs (collectively, the "settling parties") requested a continuance of the hearing, to enable the settling parties to prepare a revised "slimmed down" proposed order. The settling parties asserted that such a revised order would still approve the settlement but could do so in a manner that would circumvent the problems discussed at length below. The settling parties failed to file a revised order prior to the November 18, 1996 hearing. At that hearing the parties orally reiterated various arguments and were again given leave to file further briefing on the asserted necessity of this court applying California settlement law. That briefing was due on December 9, 1996. On December 9, 1996, at the request of the parties, a two week extension was granted. On December 20, 1996, a further extension was granted continuing the due date for further briefing until January 13, 1997.
On January 10, rather than complying with the orders of this court to provide further briefing and after having received numerous continuances, the BP entities notified the court through a "status report" that efforts to resolve the issues between the parties had not yet been completed. To provide the parties with some guidance, and in an effort to avoid further delays, the court, on January 13, 1997, directed all interested parties to answer five specific questions: (1) whether generally this court must apply state settlement principles when state law causes of action are present; (2) whether the state settlement procedures amount to substantive, rather than merely procedural, law—and whether this creates a necessity to apply the state settlement procedures in federal court; (3) why the state settlement procedures should be applied when they appear to directly conflict with federal settlement rules; (4) how state settlement procedures can be applied when federal law causes of action are asserted and will remain against non-settling parties; and (5) how the two settlement principles —if one applies to state law claims and the other applies to federal law claims—can be reconciled in one matter where the settlement amount is not divided and clearly applied as to state law claims and federal law claims, respectively.
Having now before it all responses to the court's questions, as well as the original filings for the October 21, 1996, hearing, this court rules as follows.
On February 7, 1990, the hull of the steamship American Trader was punctured while she was approximately one-and-one-half miles off the coast of Huntington Beach, California. As a result, the vessel is alleged to have released more than 200,000 gallons of crude oil into the Pacific Ocean. Oil from the spill spread over a substantial area, and oil washed ashore in Huntington Beach, Newport Beach, and adjacent nearby coastal areas. On February 13, 1990, this action (the "Class Action") was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. As against various permutations of the relevant parties, the Fourth Amended and Supplemental Class Action Complaint, filed May 12, 1992, alleges violations of §§ 293 and 294 of the California Harbors and Navigation Code, the Trans-Alaska Pipeline Authorization Act (the "TAPAA"), and general maritime law. Notably, both before and after the Settlement Agreement (if it were to be given effect by this court's order) at least some of the non-settling defendants face and will face liability under both federal and state causes of action.
The Settlement Agreement is, by its own terms, expressly contingent upon this court's finding of "good faith" under §§ 877 and 877.6 of the California Code of Civil Procedure.1 Settlement Agreement, ¶¶ 9.1, 11.5, Declaration of William P. Barry, September 9, 1996, Ex. 4, at 22-23, 26 (). The portion of the settlement to be paid by the BP entities is $1,087,500. Settlement Agreement, supra, ¶ 2.1, at 11. Under a related settlement approved by this court only under federal law, the Fund is also making a payment in this amount. The BP entities describe their share as about fifteen percent of the total recoverable amount if the Class Plaintiffs recover on all claims, or one hundred percent of the total amount if there is no recovery by Class Plaintiffs whatsoever.
As part of the Settlement Agreement, the Class Plaintiffs have assigned certain rights to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Slaven v. American Trading Transp. Co., Inc.
...the settlement. The settlement between the Class and the BP defendants ultimately collapsed, however. See Slaven v. BP America, Inc., 958 F.Supp. 1472, 1485 (C.D.Cal.1997). At the district court's request, counsel for the Fund circulated a stipulation providing for the entry of a judgment t......
-
White v. Sabatino, Civ. No. 04-00500 ACK/LEK.
...pro tanto credit approach is in direct conflict with the McDermott proportionate share approach. Slaven v. BP America, Inc., et al., 958 F.Supp. 1472, 1482-85 (C.D.Cal.1997). In Slaven the court faced a situation where (1) both state and federal claims are asserted in a single action, (2) t......
-
Marine Grp., LLC v. Marine Travelift, Inc.
...the Court now addresses the basis for its jurisdiction. In their opposition, the Non-Settling Defendants cite to Slaven v. BP Am., Inc., 958 F. Supp. 1472 (C.D. Cal. 1997), in which the district court denied a motion for determination of good faith settlement under California law because th......
-
Manikan v. Pac. Ridge Neighborhood Homeowners Ass'n
...ofthis case between plaintiff and AASI. Id. See also White v. Sabitino, 526 F.Supp.2d 1135 (D. Hawaii 2007); Slaven v. BP America, Inc., 958 F.Supp. 1472, 1478-1485 (C.D. Cal. 1997). Accordingly, the Court will consider whether the settlement between plaintiff and AASI meets California's "g......
-
Giving Credit Where Credit Is Due: Applying the Proper Set-Off Rules in FELA and Jones Act Cases After AmClyde, Ayers, and Schadel
...Watt Miller, 92 F.3d 1102 (11th Cir. 1996); Nunez v. B&B Dredging. Inc., 108 F. Supp. 2d 656 (E.D. La. 2000); Slaven v. BP Am. Inc., 958 F. Supp. 1472 (C.D. Cal. 1997); Geyer v. USX Corp., 896 F. Supp. 1440 (E.D. Mich. 1994); Miller v. Int’l. Diving and Consulting Servs., Inc., 669 So. 2d 1......