re: Does BP get a look by the Supreme Court?

quote:

---

third grade explanation

---

Was awesome.

Just read over the opinion myself and it is strange that they cited the same case I did , but just said screw this we're not going to clear this up:

“The party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing [the elements of standing] ... with the manner and degree of evidence required at the successive stages of litigation.” Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 561 (1992). While in the certification of a class action that will proceed to trial a lesser inquiry into standing may be required, Ko hen v. Pacific Investment Management Co., 571 F.3d 672 (7th Cir.2009), in a settlement class such as this one, the standing inquiry must take into account the fact that inclusion in the class means recovery. Denney v. Deutsche Bank AG, 443 F.3d 253, 264 (2d Cir.2006) (“[N]o class may be certified that contains members lacking Article III standing. The class must therefore be defined in such a way that anyone within it would have standing”). While the Kohen approach to standing has been used in the Seventh, Ninth, and Third Circuits, other cases in the Eighth, Seventh, and Ninth have assessed cases under the Denney formulation. In re Deepwater Horizon, 739 F.3d 790, 800–01 (5th Cir.2014) (“Deepwater Horizon II ”). These different approaches, sometimes used by the same circuit, reveal the deep confusion in this area of class action standing. While our en banc court had the opportunity to address and clarify this issue for our circuit, confused as it was by two separate panel opinions on one essential, constitutional issue, it has declined to do so. Admittedly, even this articulation would not have been enough for our sister circuits considering the deep split on this issue. Another court surely must resolve this.
We respectfully dissent.

In re DEEPWATER HORIZON, 13-30315, 2014 WL 2119279 (5th Cir. May 19, 2014)

6 separate circuit equally divided 3 to 3, with the 5th saying they will not make a ruling. Yeah, this will be granted cert.

quote:

---

We respectfully dissent.

---

Are you quoting from the dissenting justices on the 5th circuit??

As Five0 is aware, the writ and stay request was filed yesterday. Odds are, no writ will be granted, but nothing is for certain. As for a stay, I've not heard if one was issued or denied...time will (soon) tell.

Five, I'm no Rule 23 scholar, but if Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992) was dispositive on that issue, I don't think the 5th Circuit would have voted 8-5 to deny the en banc request. When one has to quote his position from a dissent (and a poor one at that)... ...the writing is usually on the wall, and in ink.

Agreed.

quote:

---

if cert is granted it won't be because of that (although that could very well be the given reason).

---

I agree with this. This is not a true Rule 10 case in my opinion. If cert gets granted it will be for the realpolitik reasons that (a) there are billions with a "b" at stake and (b) this is a very high-profile case. Rule 10 doesn't pretend to be an exhaustive list of the only things which the Court can consider, and they have unfettered discretion to grant or deny writs based on whatever reasons they may have.

A Good Read I think Scalia will kick the stay issue to the full court, and it's a loser. The writ request will ultimately meet the same fate. Just call me an optimist.

No. He was added when BP took a 180 degree turn on the settlement agreement.

They won't recuse themselves. Read the link I posted for the story.

Got the west law alert on it but haven't read it yet. Thx