Plaquemines et al v. ConocoPhillips Company et al

Filing 67

ORDER AND REASONS - IT IS ORDERED that the motion to stay (Rec. Doc. 40 ) is GRANTED and the matter is STAYED AND ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSED pending a decision by the Judicial Panel on Multi-district Litigation. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs� 39; motion (Rec. Doc. 62 ) for leave to file a motion to remand that exceeds the Local Rules page limits is DISMISSED AS MOOT. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiffs' Multiple Motions to Remand (Rec. Doc. 66 ) is DISMISSED AS MOOT. Signed by Judge Ivan L.R. Lemelle on 6/25/2018. (sa)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
THE PARISH OF PLAQUEMINES, ET AL.

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO. 18-5230

CONOCOPHILLIPS COMPANY, ET AL.

SECTION “B”(3)

ORDER AND REASONS
There are three motions before the Court. First, Plaintiffs
have filed a “Joint Ex Parte Motion for Leave to File Joint
Memorandum in Support of Motions for Remand in Excess of Page
Limitations of Local Rule 7.7” (Rec. Doc. 62). Second, Defendants
Chevron U.S.A. Inc., Chevron U.S.A. Holdings Inc., The Texas
Company, Exxon Mobil Corporation, ConocoPhillips Company, The
Louisiana

Land

and

Exploration

Company

LLC,

and

BP

America

Production Company have filed a “Motion for Stay Pending MDL
Determination” (Rec. Doc. 40), which Plaintiffs have opposed (Rec.
Docs. 46, 47). Third, Defendants filed a “Motion for Extension of
Time to Respond to Plaintiffs’ Multiple Motions to Remand” (Rec.
Doc. 66). For the reasons discussed below,
IT IS ORDERED that the motion to stay (Rec. Doc. 40) is
GRANTED

and

the

above-captioned

matter

is

STAYED

AND

ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSED pending a decision by the Judicial Panel
on Multidistrict Litigation (the Panel) on the motion (see Rec.
Doc. 37) to coordinate pretrial proceedings of potentially related

1

cases filed by various Louisiana parishes against various oil
companies.
The above-captioned matter was removed from state court, for
the second time, on May 23, 2018.1 See Rec. Doc. 1. On May 25,
2018, Defendants joined a motion presently before the Panel that
seeks coordinated pretrial proceedings, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1407, of various allegedly related cases. See Rec. Doc. 37.
Briefing before the Panel on that pending motion, see Rec. Doc.
37, will be completed by July 2, 2018. See Rec. Doc. 56 at 1-2. On
May 30, 2018, Defendants filed the instant motion to stay the
above-captioned matter pending a decision by the Panel. See Rec.
Doc. 40.
“The pendency of a motion . . . before the Panel pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1407 does not affect or suspend orders and pretrial
proceedings in any pending federal district court action and does
not limit the pretrial jurisdiction of that court.” Rule 2.1(d) of
the Rules of Procedure of the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation. But neither does it deprive the Court of
its “inherent” “power to stay proceedings . . . to control the
disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and

1

This same case was first removed from state court in December
2013. See Par. of Plaquemines v. ConocoPhillips Co., No. 13-6720,
Rec. Doc. 1 (E.D. La. Dec. 18, 2013). It was remanded in March
2015. See ConocoPhillips Co., No. 13-6720, Rec. Doc. 61 (E.D. La.
Mar. 10, 2015).
2

effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. North
American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936).
“[A] stay is appropriate when it serves the interests of
judicial economy and efficiency.” La. Stadium & Exposition Dist.
V. Fin. Guar. Ins. Co., No. 09-235, 2009 WL 926982, at *1 (E.D.
La. Apr. 2, 2009). “When considering a motion to stay, the district
court should consider three factors: (1) potential prejudice to
the non-moving party; (2) hardship and inequity to the moving party
if the action is not stayed; and (3) the judicial resources that
would be saved by avoiding duplicative litigation if the cases are
in fact consolidated.” Id. Here, the factors weigh in favor of
granting a stay.
Plaintiffs will suffer some prejudice from a stay because
they will be delayed in seeking remand and continuing to assert
their claims against Defendants. The prejudice here may be greater
than in the average case because the above-captioned matter has
been litigated in state court for the past three years. But this
prejudice is outweighed by the other two factors. Defendants have
exercised their statutory rights to remove the above-captioned
matter

from

state

court

and

seek

coordination

of

pretrial

proceedings. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1407, 1441. While Plaintiffs may
dispute the merits of Defendants’ actions, the instant motion to
stay is not the appropriate forum for such arguments. Denying
Defendants’ motion for a stay could interfere with Defendants’
3

ability to present their argument for coordination of pretrial
proceedings to the Panel.
Finally, granting a stay will save judicial resources by
avoiding duplicative litigation. This is one of 40 similar cases
that were removed from state court on the same day and are
currently

pending

in

various

sections

across

two

judicial

districts. See Rec. Doc. 1-1 at 3-4. To move forward with each
case individually when they might soon be consolidated would be a
waste of judicial resources as many judges “would have to spend
time familiarizing [themselves] with the intricacies of [] case[s]
involving” complex allegations and years of history. La. Stadium
& Exposition Dist., 2009 WL 926982, at *1. For example, Plaintiffs
have sought leave to file a motion to remand with a 51 page
memorandum in support and over 3,000 pages of exhibits. See Rec.
Doc. 62. Given the potential complexity of the motion to remand,
and the fact that the motion to coordinate pretrial proceedings
will be fully briefed in a few weeks, a stay will conserve judicial
resources without unduly prejudicing Plaintiffs.2

At least two other judges have recently reached the same
conclusion with respect to similar motions to stay. See Par. of
Jefferson v. Exxon Mobil Corp., No. 18-5257, Rec. Doc. 25 (E.D.
La. June 11, 2018) (granting stay pending Panel decision); Par. of
Plaquemines v. BEPCO, L.P., No. 18-5258, Rec. Doc. 18 (E.D. La.
June 11, 2018) (same); Par. of Cameron v. Alpine Expl. Co., No.
18-684, Rec. Doc. 50 (W.D. La. June 1, 2018) (same); Par. of
Cameron v. Atl. Richfield Co., No. 18-686, Rec. Doc. 19 (W.D. La.
June 1, 2018) (same); Par. of Cameron v. Auster Oil & Gas, Inc.,
No. 18-677, Rec. Doc. 52 (W.D. La. June 1, 2018) (same); Par. of
2

4

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ motion (Rec. Doc. 62)
for leave to file a motion to remand that exceeds the Local Rules
page limits is DISMISSED AS MOOT because Plaintiffs subsequently
filed motions to remand (Rec. Docs. 64, 65) that comply with the
Local Rules page limits.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ “Motion for Extension
of Time to Respond to Plaintiffs’ Multiple Motions to Remand” (Rec.
Doc. 66) is DISMISSED AS MOOT.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 25th day of June, 2018.

___________________________________
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cameron v. BP Am. Prod. Co., No. 18-687, Rec. Doc. 21 (W.D. La.
June 1, 2018) (same); Par. of Cameron v. Ballard Expl. Co., No.
18-678, Rec. Doc. 45 (W.D. La. June 12, 2018) (same); Par. of
Cameron v. Apache Corp., No. 18-688, Rec. Doc. 47 (W.D. La. June
12, 2018) (same); Par. of Cameron v. Anadarko E&P Onshore, LLC,
No. 18-689, Rec. Doc. 59 (W.D. La. June 12, 2018) (same) Par. of
Cameron v. BEPCO, L.P., No. 18-690, Rec. Doc. 91 (W.D. La. June
12, 2018) (same); Stutes v. Gulfport Energy Corp., No. 18-691,
Rec. Doc. 49 (W.D. La. June 12, 2018) (same).
5