ID 100002448 v. BP Exploration & Prodn, I

Fifth Circuit

ID 100002448 v. BP Exploration & Prodn, I

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedMay 21, 2019

Docket18-30829

StatusUnpublished

This text of ID 100002448 v. BP Exploration & Prodn, I (ID 100002448 v. BP Exploration & Prodn, I) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

ID 100002448 v. BP Exploration & Prodn, I, (5th Cir. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

Case: 18-30829 Document: 00514964816 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/21/2019

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit

FILED No. 18-30829 May 21, 2019 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk CLAIMANT ID 100002448,

Requesting Party - Appellant

v.

BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INCORPORATED; BP AMERICA PRODUCTION COMPANY; BP, P.L.C.,

Objecting Parties - Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana USDC No. 2:18-CV-5379

Before JONES, HIGGINSON, and OLDHAM, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Claimant Platinum Packing, Inc. submitted a claim for business economic loss to the Deepwater Horizon Court Supervised Settlement Program (“CSSP”). See generally In re Oil Spill by Oil Rig Deepwater Horizon in Gulf of Mexico, on Apr. 20, 2010, 910 F. Supp. 2d 891, 900 (E.D. La. 2012), aff’d sub nom. In re Deepwater Horizon, 739 F.3d 790 (5th Cir. 2014). CSSP found

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. Case: 18-30829 Document: 00514964816 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/21/2019

No. 18-30829 Platinum Packing eligible for compensation, but not in the full amount that Platinum Packing had sought. CSSP’s internal Appeal Panel affirmed the award amount. Platinum Packing sought discretionary review from the district court, which the district court declined to grant. Platinum Packing now timely appeals the district court’s denial of discretionary review. The Appeal Panel decision at issue “involves no pressing question of how the Settlement Agreement should be interpreted or implemented, but simply raises the correctness of a discretionary administrative decision in the facts of a single claimant’s case.” Claimant ID 100212278 v. BP Expl. & Prod., Inc., 848 F.3d 407, 410 (5th Cir. 2017) (internal quotations omitted). We therefore AFFIRM.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Case: 18-30829 Document: 00514964816 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/21/2019

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit

FILED No. 18-30829 May 21, 2019 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk CLAIMANT ID 100002448,

Requesting Party - Appellant

v.

BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INCORPORATED; BP AMERICA PRODUCTION COMPANY; BP, P.L.C.,

Objecting Parties - Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana USDC No. 2:18-CV-5379

Before JONES, HIGGINSON, and OLDHAM, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Claimant Platinum Packing, Inc. submitted a claim for business economic loss to the Deepwater Horizon Court Supervised Settlement Program (“CSSP”). See generally In re Oil Spill by Oil Rig Deepwater Horizon in Gulf of Mexico, on Apr. 20, 2010, 910 F. Supp. 2d 891, 900 (E.D. La. 2012), aff’d sub nom. In re Deepwater Horizon, 739 F.3d 790 (5th Cir. 2014). CSSP found

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. Case: 18-30829 Document: 00514964816 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/21/2019

No. 18-30829 Platinum Packing eligible for compensation, but not in the full amount that Platinum Packing had sought. CSSP’s internal Appeal Panel affirmed the award amount. Platinum Packing sought discretionary review from the district court, which the district court declined to grant. Platinum Packing now timely appeals the district court’s denial of discretionary review. The Appeal Panel decision at issue “involves no pressing question of how the Settlement Agreement should be interpreted or implemented, but simply raises the correctness of a discretionary administrative decision in the facts of a single claimant’s case.” Claimant ID 100212278 v. BP Expl. & Prod., Inc., 848 F.3d 407, 410 (5th Cir. 2017) (internal quotations omitted). We therefore AFFIRM.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

ID 100002448 v. BP Exploration & Prodn, I, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/id-100002448-v-bp-exploration-prodn-i-ca5-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack