Plaquemines Parish v. BP America Prod

Opinion

Case: 23-30294 Document: 269-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/31/2024

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit ___________ FILED October 31, 2024 No. 23-30294 ___________ Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Plaquemines Parish,

Plaintiff—Appellee,

Louisiana State; Louisiana Department of Natural Resources, Office of Coastal Management, Thomas F. Harris, Secretary,

Intervenors—Appellees,

versus

BP America Production Company, As Successor in Interest to Amoco Production Company; Burlington Resources Oil & Gas Company, L.P.; Chevron USA, Incorporated, As Successor in Interest to Chevron Oil Company, The California Company and Gulf Oil Corporation; Exxon Mobil Corporation, As Successor in Interest to The Superior Oil Company; Shell Offshore, Incorporated; Shell Oil Company; Chevron U.S.A. Holdings, Incorporated, As Successor in Interest to Texaco E&P Incorporated. and Texaco Incorporated; Texas Company; Chevron Pipe Line Company, As Successor in Interest to Gulf Refining Company,

Defendants—Appellants,

consolidated with ___________

No. 23-30422 ___________ Case: 23-30294 Document: 269-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/31/2024

No. 23-30294 c/w No. 23-30422

Parish of Cameron,

State of Louisiana, ex rel, on behalf of Jeff Landry; State of Louisiana, on behalf of Louisiana Department of Natural Resources, on behalf of Office of Coastal Management, on behalf of Thomas F. Harris,

Intervenor Plaintiffs—Appellees,

BP America Production Company; Chevron U.S.A. Incorporated, own capacity & as successor in interest, on behalf of California Company; Shell Oil Company; SWEPI, L.P.,

Defendants—Appellants. ______________________________

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana USDC No. 2:18-CV-5256 ______________________________

ON PETITIONS FOR REHEARING AND REHEARING EN BANC

Before Davis, Engelhardt, and Oldham, Circuit Judges. ∗ Per Curiam:

∗ Judges Jerry E. Smith, Catharina Haynes, James C. Ho, and Dana M. Douglas, did not participate in the consideration of the rehearing en banc.

2 Case: 23-30294 Document: 269-1 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/31/2024

The petition for panel rehearing is DENIED. The petition for rehearing en banc is DENIED because, at the request of one of its members, the court was polled, and a majority did not vote in favor of rehearing (Fed. R. App. P. 35 and 5th Cir. R. 35). In the en banc poll, six judges voted in favor of rehearing (Judges Jones, Richman, Willett, Duncan, Oldham, and Wilson), and seven judges voted against rehearing (Chief Judge Elrod and Judges Stewart, Southwick, Graves, Higginson, Engelhardt, and Ramirez).