Hornbeck Offshore Services, L.L.C. v. Salazar et al

Filing 278

ORDER AND REASONS denying in part 276 Motion for Entry of Final Judgment. Signed by Judge Martin L.C. Feldman on 8/3/2011. (caa, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
HORNBECK OFFSHORE SERVICES, LLC,
ET AL

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO. 10-1663

KENNETH LEE SALAZAR, ET AL

SECTION “F”

ORDER & REASONS
The plaintiffs move for entry of final judgment in this case.
The government contests a single word in their proposed judgment.
Their dispute presents a question of tense.
The plaintiffs propose the following language:
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED,
that Defendants, Kenneth Lee “Ken” Salazar, in
his official capacity as Secretary, United
States Department of Interior, United States
Department of Interior, Michael Bromwich, in
his official capacity as Director, Mineral
Management Services (now known as the Bureau
of Ocean Energy Management Regulation and
Enforcement (“BOEMRE”), and Mineral Management
Services (now known as BOEMRE) are in civil
contempt of this Court’s Order of Preliminary
Injunction (Rec. Doc. 68)[.]
(Emphasis added.)
The government suggests this alternative:
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED,
that Defendants, Kenneth Lee “Ken” Salazar, in
his official capacity as Secretary, United
States Department of Interior, United States
Department of Interior, Michael Bromwich, in
his official capacity as Director, Mineral
Management Services (now known as the Bureau
of Ocean Energy Management Regulation and
Enforcement (“BOEMRE”), and Mineral Management
Services (now known as BOEMRE) were in civil
1

contempt of this Court’s Order of Preliminary
Injunction (Rec. Doc. 68)[.]
(Emphasis added.) Resolution of this temporal dispute rests on the
terms of this Court’s past orders.
On February 2, 2011, the Court held the government in civil
contempt of its June 22, 2010 Order of preliminary injunction.

In

partly adopting the Magistrate’s Findings and Recommendation on the
issue of quantum on June 23, 2011, the Court agreed with the
Magistrate that the period of the government’s contempt ran from
June 22, 2010 until September 29, 2010.
Court addressed the question of contempt.

No later orders of this
Thus, a proper reading

of this Court’s February 2, 2011 and June 23, 2011 Orders leads to
the conclusion that, as of September 30, 2010, the government was
(not is) in contempt of this Court’s preliminary injunction.
Because the government’s proposes language that more precisely
reflects the terms of the Order, the Court DENIES the plaintiffs’
motion in part.1

A judgment reflecting the terms of this Order

will be entered.
New Orleans, Louisiana, August 3, 2011.

____________________________
MARTIN L. C. FELDMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1

The plaintiffs and government agree to the terms of the
plaintiffs’ proposed judgment to the extent it summarizes all
other aspects of their dispute. The Court GRANTS the plaintiffs’
motion to the extent it addresses these issues.
2