McBride v. BP Deepwater Horizon et al
Filing
3
ORDER AND REASONS DISMISSING WITHOUT PREJUDICE 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiffs are advised that the complaints are not necessary, if all they seek is (a) review of denial of their claims against the BP Economic Damages Settlement Program, which may be accomplished by motion in MDL No. 2179, or (b) to assert a claim with the claims administrator for payment from the Halliburton- Transocean settlement funds. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Wilkinson, Jr on 10/14/2016. (NEF: Hon. Carl J. Barbier) (mmv)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
BLONDINE M. McBRIDE
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NO. 16-15250
B.P. OIL SPILL, HALLIBURTON
AND TRANSOCEAN PUNITIVE DAMAGE
SECTION “J” (2)
* * * * *
RICHARD McBRIDE
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NO. 16-15253
B.P. OIL SPILL, HALLIBURTON
AND TRANSOCEAN PUNITIVE DAMAGE
SECTION “J” (2)
* * * * *
LEOUTHA BATISTE
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NO. 16-15254
B.P. OIL SPILL, HALLIBURTON
AND TRANSOCEAN PUNITIVE DAMAGE
SECTION “J” (2)
* * * * *
RICO O. McBRIDE
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NO. 16-15255
B.P. OIL SPILL, HALLIBURTON
AND TRANSOCEAN PUNITIVE DAMAGE
SECTION “J” (2)
* * * * *
POWER HOUSE CHURCH OF GOD,
HOLY GHOST POWER
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NO. 16-15258
B.P. OIL SPILL, HALLIBURTON
AND TRANSOCEAN PUNITIVE DAMAGE
SECTION “J” (2)
* * * * *
ESTHER WATSON
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NO. 16-15259
B.P. OIL SPILL, HALLIBURTON
AND TRANSOCEAN PUNITIVE DAMAGE
SECTION “J” (2)
ORDER AND REASONS
Plaintiffs in the six above-captioned cases are closely connected residents of Moss
Point, Mississippi. The have all filed virtually identical complaints, each accompanied
by a separate application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”).
The five individual plaintiffs – the McBrides, Batiste and Watson – all allege that
they worked as members of “the Queen Esther commercial fishing” crew and that the
Power House Church of God, Holy Ghost Power (“the Church”) lost donations from the
Queen Esther fishing operation and members of the Church, which “was damaged and
effected (sic) by the B.P. oil spill that occurred on or about April 20, 2010.” Complaints
at ¶’s 1-2. The complaints allege that the church was part owner of the Queen Esther
commercial fishing venture and “had a contract with the Queen Esther commercial
2
fishing [to] recover punitive damage (sic) . . .” Id. at ¶ 6. The complaints also allege that
the Church suffered “business economic loss” and lost profits, id. at ¶ 7, and that each
of the individual plaintiffs “sustained personal property physical damage as a direct result
of the Deepwater horizon incident . . . .” Id. at ¶ 9.
Throughout the complaints, references are made to the $2.3 billion punitive
damages class settlement agreements between plaintiff classes and BP’s co-defendants
in the pending MDL proceedings, MDL No. 2179, Halliburton (“HESI”) and Transocean.
Id. at ¶’s 10-13. The prayers for relief in each complaint appear to seek payment from
the proposed Halliburton-Transocean settlements, which have not yet received this
court’s final approval, with a fairness hearing currently set for November 10, 2016,
Record Doc. No. 16900, and as to which the claim payment process has not yet begun.
It appears that the filing of these complaints was prompted by plaintiffs’ receipt
of class notices issued in connection with the pending Halliburton-Transocean
settlements and/or by denial of their claims in the separate BP Economic Damages
Settlement Program. Plaintiffs are hereby instructed that it is not necessary to file a
separate lawsuit and to pay the $400 filing fee and/or seek in forma pauperis status, either
to appeal the denial of their claims by the BP Economic Damages claims administrator
or to assert a claim to receive payment from the Halliburton-Transocean settlements.
To obtain this court’s review of any denial of plaintiffs’ administrative claims
involving the BP Economic Damages Settlement Program, plaintiffs need only file a
3
motion seeking review of denial of their claims in this court in MDL No. 2179. To assert
a claim to receive payment from the Halliburton-Transocean settlements, plaintiffs need
only complete and submit the appropriate claim form to the claims administrator. Claims
forms are available to them on the court’s website. A sample form is attached to this
order. A separate lawsuit accompanied by the $400 filing fee or an IFP application is not
necessary at this time.
In addition, it appears that some of the plaintiffs are financially or otherwise
ineligible to proceed in forma pauperis. For example, Rico McBride, Leoutha Batiste
and Esther Watson have more than sufficient cash or funds available in checking or
savings accounts to pay the filing fee. The Church is an entity – not a natural person.
It is well established that “[o]nly natural persons may qualify to proceed [in forma
pauperis] under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.” Lee v. Tex. Dep’t of Pub. Safety, 104 F. App’x 425,
426 (5th Cir. 2004) (citing Rowland v. Calif. Men’s Colony, 506 U.S. 194, 202-03
(1993)); accord Emrit v. Nat'l Acad. of Recording Arts & Scis., No. A-14-CA-392-SS,
2015 WL 518774, at *5 (W.D. Tex. Feb. 5, 2015) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a); Rowland,
506 U.S. at 211-12; Memon v. Allied Domecq QSR, 385 F.3d 871, 873 (5th Cir. 2004)).
Moreover, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has consistently held
that entities like corporations, partnerships, trusts and other associations may not proceed
pro se, but must be represented in legal proceedings by licensed counsel. Walker v.
Webco Indus., Inc., 562 F. App’x 215, 217 (5th Cir. 2014) (citing Rowland v. Calif.
4
Men’s Colony, 506 U.S. 194, 202 & n.5 (1993) Sw. Express Co., Inc. v. Interstate
Commerce Comm’n, 670 F.2d 53, 54-56 (5th Cir. 1982)); Memon v. Allied Domecq
QSR, 385 F.3d 871, 873 (5th Cir. 2004); United States v. Trowbridge, 251 F.3d 157,
2001 WL 300933, at *1 (5th Cir. 2001). The consequences to a business entity
attempting to proceed without legal representation are severe, including, for example,
dismissal of a claim. Walker, 562 F. App’x at 217; Donovan v. Road Rangers Country
Junction, Inc., 736 F.2d 1004, 1005 (5th Cir. 1984); Wethy v. Barrett, Daffin, Frappier,
Turner & Engle LLP, No. 3:13-CV-2547-N BH, 2013 WL 4436179, at *2 (N.D. Tex.
Aug. 19, 2013) (citing Donovan, 736 F.2d at 1005).
For all of the foregoing reasons, these applications to proceed in forma pauperis
are dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiffs are advised that the complaints are not
necessary, if all they seek is (a) review of denial of their claims against the BP Economic
Damages Settlement Program, which may be accomplished by motion in MDL No. 2179,
or (b) to assert a claim with the claims administrator for payment from the HalliburtonTransocean settlement funds.
14th
New Orleans, Louisiana, this _________ day of October, 2016.
JOSEPH C. WILKINSON, JR.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
CLERK TO NOTIFY:
HON. CARL J. BARBIER
5
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?