- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Does BP get a look by the Supreme Court?
Posted on 5/28/14 at 2:47 pm
Posted on 5/28/14 at 2:47 pm
BP Lost Appeal again?
It appears they are out of appeals on the circuit court level and only other option is to appeal to Supreme Court, I guess that's what I'm reading.
Do you think they get a look by them and do they deserve that opportunity? And what determines what the Supreme Court hears? Just curious as how this works.
It appears they are out of appeals on the circuit court level and only other option is to appeal to Supreme Court, I guess that's what I'm reading.
Do you think they get a look by them and do they deserve that opportunity? And what determines what the Supreme Court hears? Just curious as how this works.
This post was edited on 5/28/14 at 2:48 pm
3
Posted on 5/28/14 at 2:54 pm to Martini
Doubt they take it up but Scalia might enter an injunction pending a vote to take it up. He's the perfect judge for BP to have making this decision.
Posted on 5/28/14 at 3:12 pm to Martini
Yes. Will post more later.
Posted on 5/28/14 at 3:44 pm to Martini
I don't think the Supreme Court should grant cert in this matter, mainly because I don't think there is any real legal principle at stake so much as BP simply wants to renege on a deal that is proving more costly than they anticipated. Anyway, here is Supreme Court Rule 10; you be the judge! 
Review on a writ of certiorari is not a matter of right, but of judicial discretion. A petition for a writ of certiorari will be granted only for compelling reasons. The following, although neither controlling nor fully measuring the Court's discretion, indicate the character of the reasons the Court considers:
•(a) a United States court of appeals has entered a decision in conflict with the decision of another United States court of appeals on the same important matter; has decided an important federal question in a way that conflicts with a decision by a state court of last resort; or has so far departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings, or sanctioned such a departure by a lower court, as to call for an exercise of this Court's supervisory power;
•(b) a state court of last resort has decided an important federal question in a way that conflicts with the decision of another state court of last resort or of a United States court of appeals;
•(c) a state court or a United States court of appeals has decided an important question of federal law that has not been, but should be, settled by this Court, or has decided an important federal question in a way that conflicts with relevant decisions of this Court.
A petition for a writ of certiorari is rarely granted when the asserted error consists of erroneous factual findings or the misapplication of a properly stated rule of law.
Review on a writ of certiorari is not a matter of right, but of judicial discretion. A petition for a writ of certiorari will be granted only for compelling reasons. The following, although neither controlling nor fully measuring the Court's discretion, indicate the character of the reasons the Court considers:
•(a) a United States court of appeals has entered a decision in conflict with the decision of another United States court of appeals on the same important matter; has decided an important federal question in a way that conflicts with a decision by a state court of last resort; or has so far departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings, or sanctioned such a departure by a lower court, as to call for an exercise of this Court's supervisory power;
•(b) a state court of last resort has decided an important federal question in a way that conflicts with the decision of another state court of last resort or of a United States court of appeals;
•(c) a state court or a United States court of appeals has decided an important question of federal law that has not been, but should be, settled by this Court, or has decided an important federal question in a way that conflicts with relevant decisions of this Court.
A petition for a writ of certiorari is rarely granted when the asserted error consists of erroneous factual findings or the misapplication of a properly stated rule of law.
Posted on 5/28/14 at 3:48 pm to N.O. via West-Cal
quote:
I don't think there is any real legal principle at stake so much as BP simply wants to renege on a deal that is proving more costly than they anticipated.
They knew how much it would cost. It really appears this was all legal strategy. They wanted to appear cooperative as heck in the beginning. Then once they got past the criminal cases and the initial impact to their image was healed they reneged.
They knew exactly how this would play out. It is documented they were aware how this claims process would go. They agreed anyway.
This post was edited on 5/28/14 at 3:49 pm
Posted on 5/28/14 at 3:49 pm to LSU5508
quote:
He's the perfect judge for BP to have making this decision
why is that?
Posted on 5/28/14 at 3:50 pm to lsu13lsu
"They knew how much it would cost."
Perhaps. But it has been widely reported that they initially estimated 7.8 billion and that now the numbers are expected to be higher.
Perhaps. But it has been widely reported that they initially estimated 7.8 billion and that now the numbers are expected to be higher.
Posted on 5/28/14 at 3:55 pm to N.O. via West-Cal
While I can understand their gripe, its BP's fault for leaving this as open ended as they did. People are going to take advantage of this if you allow them to, and BP left pretty general requirements to submit a claim.
Posted on 5/28/14 at 3:58 pm to N.O. via West-Cal
quote:
it has been widely reported that they initially estimated 7.8 billion and that now the numbers are expected to be higher.
They initially expected it to be $7.8B but admitted at the time it could be higher. They now expect it to be $9.6B. That doesn't seem like a giant leap from the original estimates. Look at any big corporation or big government's initial estimates of liabilities. They are always adjusted up.
Posted on 5/28/14 at 4:01 pm to elprez00
quote:
BP's fault for leaving this as open ended as they did. People are going to take advantage of this if you allow them to, and BP left pretty general requirements to submit a claim.
Their reasoning was image repair. So, it isn't like they did this for nothing. They wanted to appear as if they were a squeaky clean company who made a mistake. They wanted to appear like they would go above and beyond to fix it.
They let some time go and the initial shock to end. Then they let the criminal charges end. Then they went back on the deal.
Posted on 5/28/14 at 4:59 pm to lsu13lsu
quote:
Then they let the criminal charges end. Then they went back on the deal.
I thought they still faced the Department of Justice? This has been complete?
Posted on 5/28/14 at 6:03 pm to Martini
Back,
The plaintiffs and BP entered into a settlement agreement that relaxed the causation requirements for plaintiffs seeking relief from BP. This settlement has given rise to what BP has argued are fictitious claims that results in awards to Business and Economic Loss(BEL) claimants who admittedly either have suffered no loss at all or have suffered losses that were not caused by the oil spill. In re Deepwater Horizon, 732 F.3d 326, 340 (5th Cir. 2013). If there is no loss that can be linked to the actions of BP then the potential plaintiff has no standing with the court. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992).
"As the parties invoking federal jurisdiction, respondents bear the burden of showing standing by establishing, inter alia, that they have suffered an injury in fact, i.e., a concrete and particularized, actual or imminent invasion of a legally protected interest. To survive a summary judgment motion, they must set forth by affidavit or other evidence specific facts to support their claim. Id at 555."
The extent of judicial power, even in the cases of class action suits, only extends to actual cases and controversies that show damages with a casual connection to the actions of a defendants. Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 349 (1996). Without the three constitutional requirements of:
1) an injury in fact
2) a casual connection between that injury and the action of the defendant
3) that injury can be compensated by action of the court
there is no case or controversy that the federal courts have jurisdiction over. Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560-61.
The settlement that was agreed on in the district court is not proper. The district court erred as a matter of law. By allowing the settlement, as agreed upon by the parties, the district court has removed the plaintiffs' standing under Article III. Although the error was in good faith to secure speedy resolution to a massive action affecting many plaintiffs it is not constitutionally sound.©
To the person that said Scalia is the perfect person to review this case, you are spot on. That is his quote from Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife that I cited.
The plaintiffs and BP entered into a settlement agreement that relaxed the causation requirements for plaintiffs seeking relief from BP. This settlement has given rise to what BP has argued are fictitious claims that results in awards to Business and Economic Loss(BEL) claimants who admittedly either have suffered no loss at all or have suffered losses that were not caused by the oil spill. In re Deepwater Horizon, 732 F.3d 326, 340 (5th Cir. 2013). If there is no loss that can be linked to the actions of BP then the potential plaintiff has no standing with the court. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992).
"As the parties invoking federal jurisdiction, respondents bear the burden of showing standing by establishing, inter alia, that they have suffered an injury in fact, i.e., a concrete and particularized, actual or imminent invasion of a legally protected interest. To survive a summary judgment motion, they must set forth by affidavit or other evidence specific facts to support their claim. Id at 555."
The extent of judicial power, even in the cases of class action suits, only extends to actual cases and controversies that show damages with a casual connection to the actions of a defendants. Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 349 (1996). Without the three constitutional requirements of:
1) an injury in fact
2) a casual connection between that injury and the action of the defendant
3) that injury can be compensated by action of the court
there is no case or controversy that the federal courts have jurisdiction over. Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560-61.
The settlement that was agreed on in the district court is not proper. The district court erred as a matter of law. By allowing the settlement, as agreed upon by the parties, the district court has removed the plaintiffs' standing under Article III. Although the error was in good faith to secure speedy resolution to a massive action affecting many plaintiffs it is not constitutionally sound.©
To the person that said Scalia is the perfect person to review this case, you are spot on. That is his quote from Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife that I cited.
Posted on 5/28/14 at 6:14 pm to Five0
So BP enters into a fraudulent agreement for PR purposes, knowing it's fraudulent--and don't think for a minute that this line of reasoning wasn't discussed at the time by its legal team--with the intent of coming back when the dust has settled and using this argument to renege. Diabolically clever, though evil.
This post was edited on 5/28/14 at 6:21 pm
Posted on 5/28/14 at 6:20 pm to Five0
We've dabbled in this discussion before, but I'm still not clear...
Who do you think the plaintiffs are who are trying to invoke federal jurisdiction?
Are you saying the shrimpers and the seafood companies didn't have standing to sue BP or are you saying BP doesn't have standing to now ask a federal court to invalidate the settlement agreement?
ETA: Just re-read it. What if BP broadened or diluted the causation requirement by consent with the Plaintiff's Steering Committee?
Who do you think the plaintiffs are who are trying to invoke federal jurisdiction?
Are you saying the shrimpers and the seafood companies didn't have standing to sue BP or are you saying BP doesn't have standing to now ask a federal court to invalidate the settlement agreement?
ETA: Just re-read it. What if BP broadened or diluted the causation requirement by consent with the Plaintiff's Steering Committee?
This post was edited on 5/28/14 at 6:33 pm
Posted on 5/28/14 at 6:30 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
Are you saying the shrimpers and the seafood companies didn't have standing to sue BP or are you saying BP doesn't have standing to now ask a federal court to invalidate the settlement agreement?
Why has this not been corrected by the circuit court of appeals?
Talk to me like I'm a third grader.
Posted on 5/28/14 at 6:34 pm to Martini
I'm on a cell phone and I haven't read the 5th Circuit opinion. I'm spitballing off of what the other guy is posting.
Posted on 5/28/14 at 7:09 pm to boosiebadazz
The dissent from en banc stressed the standing point.
Posted on 5/28/14 at 7:14 pm to Five0
So do you just post BP's memoranda word for word?
Posted on 5/28/14 at 7:18 pm to boosiebadazz
Answering anyway for the benefit of others reading. 
Thousands all over the gulf coast, inland, and even other effected by the spill.
No, anyone that can prove causation has standing and can file an action (be it a class or individual).
No, I'm saying the flawed settlement cannot be enforced by the court under Article III of the Constitution. Irreducible constitutional minimum of standing requires that plaintiff have suffered an injury in fact, which is an invasion of a legally protected interest which is concrete and particularized and actual or imminent rather than conjectural or hypothetical; [b]that there be a causal connection between the injury and conduct complained of so that the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant and not the result of the independent action of some third party who is not before the court[/b]; and that it be likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that injury will be redressed by a favorable decision.
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 112 S. Ct. 2130, 119 L. Ed. 2d 351 (1992)
Then they are the evil masterminds that Jim Rockford mentioned. A flawed settlement like that can not be enforced by the courts due the constitutional requirements for a cause of action I listed above. Rule < Court Order < Agreement among the parties < BP playing chess while everyone else playing checkers and removing court jurisdiction to enforce the agreed upon settlement. In other words, no causation, no case in controversy, no legally binding/enforceable settlement.
quote:
Who do you think the plaintiffs are who are trying to invoke federal jurisdiction?
Thousands all over the gulf coast, inland, and even other effected by the spill.
quote:
Are you saying the shrimpers and the seafood companies didn't have standing to sue BP
No, anyone that can prove causation has standing and can file an action (be it a class or individual).
quote:
are you saying BP doesn't have standing to now ask a federal court to invalidate the settlement agreement?
No, I'm saying the flawed settlement cannot be enforced by the court under Article III of the Constitution. Irreducible constitutional minimum of standing requires that plaintiff have suffered an injury in fact, which is an invasion of a legally protected interest which is concrete and particularized and actual or imminent rather than conjectural or hypothetical; [b]that there be a causal connection between the injury and conduct complained of so that the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant and not the result of the independent action of some third party who is not before the court[/b]; and that it be likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that injury will be redressed by a favorable decision.
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 112 S. Ct. 2130, 119 L. Ed. 2d 351 (1992)
quote:
What if BP broadened or diluted the causation requirement by consent with the Plaintiff's Steering Committee?
Then they are the evil masterminds that Jim Rockford mentioned. A flawed settlement like that can not be enforced by the courts due the constitutional requirements for a cause of action I listed above. Rule < Court Order < Agreement among the parties < BP playing chess while everyone else playing checkers and removing court jurisdiction to enforce the agreed upon settlement. In other words, no causation, no case in controversy, no legally binding/enforceable settlement.
Posted on 5/28/14 at 7:19 pm to Martini
Alright, like a third grader it is
There might be a time when little Johnny shakes up a soft drink really hard before opening it. And then, little Johnny opens it and it sprays that drink all over the room. The other kids who got hit by the spraying drink might want little Johnny to pay for new clothes after the drink hit them. Little Johnny never saw who actually got hit by the drink, so little Johnny tells everyone in the room that he will pay for new clothes. But, little Johnny later learns that the drink might not have hit everyone in the room, even though their clothes were dirty, and now he's mad that he has to pay for new clothes for everyone without the showing that they had drink on their clothes.
But, the teacher said that little Johnny already agreed to pay for new clothes for everyone in the room, so he can't go back on his word. Little Johnny knows that he has to pay for some new clothes, but he doesn't want to pay for new clothes for everyone unless they can show him the drink on their clothes. Little Johnny wants the principal to fix that for the teacher.
There might be a time when little Johnny shakes up a soft drink really hard before opening it. And then, little Johnny opens it and it sprays that drink all over the room. The other kids who got hit by the spraying drink might want little Johnny to pay for new clothes after the drink hit them. Little Johnny never saw who actually got hit by the drink, so little Johnny tells everyone in the room that he will pay for new clothes. But, little Johnny later learns that the drink might not have hit everyone in the room, even though their clothes were dirty, and now he's mad that he has to pay for new clothes for everyone without the showing that they had drink on their clothes.
But, the teacher said that little Johnny already agreed to pay for new clothes for everyone in the room, so he can't go back on his word. Little Johnny knows that he has to pay for some new clothes, but he doesn't want to pay for new clothes for everyone unless they can show him the drink on their clothes. Little Johnny wants the principal to fix that for the teacher.
This post was edited on 5/28/14 at 7:32 pm
Page 1 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News