Jefferson Parish v. Exxon Mobil Corporation et al

Filing 25

ORDER GRANTING 11 Motion to Stay. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter is stayed and administratively closed pending the MDL Panel's determination regarding whether to coordinate pretrial proceedings for the Parish Oil and Gas Cases before a single judge. Signed by Chief Judge Nannette Jolivette Brown on 6/11/2018. (mmv)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
PARISH OF JEFFERSON

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

CASE NO. 18-5257

EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION, et al.

SECTION: “G” (5)

ORDER
Currently pending before the Court is a “Motion to Stay Pending MDL Determination”
filed by Defendants Chevron U.S.A. Inc., Chevron U.S.A. Holdings Inc., ExxonMobil Corporation,
and The Louisiana Land and Exploration Company, LLC (collectively, “Moving Defendants”). 1

Having considered the motion, the memoranda in support and opposition, the record, and the
applicable law, the Court will exercise its discretion to stay this matter pending decision by the
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (the “MDL Panel”).
I. Background
This case is one of several filed by Jefferson Parish against various defendants for alleged
violations of permits issued pursuant to the State and Local Coastal Resources Management Act
of 1978 (“SLCRMA”). 2 The Parishes of Plaquemines, Cameron, Vermillion, and St. Bernard filed
similar lawsuits (collectively, “Parish Oil and Gas Cases”). 3 Plaintiff Jefferson Parish filed a
petition in the 24th Judicial District Court for the Parish of Jefferson on November 11, 2013,
wherein it seeks damages and other relief for violations of SLCRMA and the state and local
regulations, guidelines, ordinances, and orders promulgated thereunder (collectively, the “CZM

1

Rec. Doc. 11.

2

Case No. 13-6717, Rec. Doc. 1.

3

Id.

1

Laws”). 4 The Parish disavowed any other type of claim, cause of action, or legal theory potentially
cognizable on the facts alleged, including any that could form the basis for jurisdiction in a federal
court. 5 On December 18, 2013, four Defendants removed the case to this Court, alleging the
following bases for original jurisdiction in federal court: (1) diversity jurisdiction; (2) Outer
Continental Shelf Lands Act (“OCSLA”); and (3) general maritime law. 6 Plaintiff filed a motion
to remand. 7 On July 7, 2015, this Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to remand and remanded the
case to state court. 8
On May 23, 2018, Defendants Chevron U.S.A. Inc., Chevron U.S.A. Holdings Inc.,
ExxonMobil Corporation, and The Louisiana Land and Exploration Company, LLC (collectively,
“Removing Defendants”) removed the case for a second time to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1332, 1367, 1441, and 1446. 9 Removing Defendants argue that federal jurisdiction is now clear
because of Plaintiff’s recently filed expert report, which Removing Defendants purport reveals for
the first time that Plaintiff’s claims relate to activities undertaken before the SLCRMA was
effective and when Defendants were instead subject to extensive and exclusive federal direction,
control, and regulation. 10 Removing Defendants assert that Plaintiff’s “claims (1) implicate

4

Id. at 2.

5

Case No. 13-6717, Rec. Doc. 68.

6

Case No. 13-6717, Rec. Doc. 1.

7

Case No. 13-6717, Rec. Doc. 22.

8

Case No. 13-6717, Rec. Doc. 68.

9

Rec. Doc. 1.

10

Id. at 2.

2

wartime and national emergency activities undertaken at the direction of federal officers, and (2)
necessarily require resolution of substantial, disputed questions of federal law.” 11
On May 29, 2018, Removing Defendants filed a “Motion for Coordinated Pretrial
Proceedings Pursuant to 12 U.S.C. § 1407” with the MDL Panel, arguing that the Parish Oil and
Gas Cases should be transferred to the Eastern District of Louisiana for coordinated pretrial
proceedings. 12 In support of their motion, Removing Defendants argued that the cases contain the
same cause of action, nearly identical allegations, and the same requested relief. 13 Pursuant to
MDL Panel rules, the parties will be given a full opportunity to brief the question of transfer, and
the MDL Panel will consider the matter at its bimonthly hearing session. 14
On May 30, 2018, Moving Defendants filed a “Motion to Stay Pending MDL
Determination” in this Court, asserting that this matter should be stayed pending decision of the
MDL Panel on whether to consolidate the Parish Oil and Gas Cases. 15 On June 5, 2018, Plaintiff
Jefferson Parish filed an opposition to the motion to stay. 16 On June 7, 2018, Removing Defendants
filed a reply brief in further support of the motion to stay. 17

11

Id.

12

Rec. Doc. 8.

13

Id. at 3.

14

Rule 7.1(c) of Procedure of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.

15

Rec. Doc. 11.

16

Rec. Doc. 15.

17

Rec. Doc. 21.

3

II. Parties’ Arguments
A. Moving Defendants’ Arguments in Support
In support of the motion, Moving Defendants argue that the Court should stay this case
until after the MDL Panel rules on the pending motion to coordinate pretrial proceedings in this
case and the other Parish Oil and Gas Cases. 18 Moving Defendants assert that it would be
inefficient for the parties to engage in additional pretrial work before the MDL Panel makes it
decision as, according to Moving Defendants, multiple judges should not have to duplicate their
efforts and risk making inconsistent rulings when these cases may be transferred to a single
judge. 19 Moving Defendants also contend that Plaintiffs will not be prejudiced or suffer hardship
from this stay as Moving Defendants argue that whatever delay Plaintiffs may experience will be
“slight.” 20 Further, Moving Defendants claim that if the case is not stayed, the waste of judicial
resources would be substantial as courts would need to familiarize themselves with a complex case
that may ultimately be heard by another judge. 21
B. Jefferson Parish’s Arguments In Opposition 22
In opposition, Jefferson Parish asserts that the Court should deny the Moving Defendants’
motion to stay. 23 While Jefferson Parish admits that courts in “typical cases” routinely grant

18

Rec. Doc. 11-1 at 1.

19

Id. at 2.

20

Id.

21

Id. at 3–4 (citing Louisiana Stadium, 2009 WL 926982, at *1).

22
Plaintiff-Intervenor State of Louisiana filed an opposition to the motion to stay, adopting Jefferson Parish’s
opposition. Rec. Doc. 15. The State of Louisiana asserts that it made an appearance in this action solely for the purpose
of opposing Moving Defendant’s motion to stay, and that it does not consent to this Court’s jurisdiction nor waive its
sovereign immunity. Id.
23

Rec. Doc. 13 at 1.

4

motions to stay pending MDL determinations, Jefferson Parish argues that this case is not typical. 24
Jefferson Parish notes that there is no pending MDL, only a request to create one; asserts that the
parties are “deeply into the discovery process” for some of the cases; and contends that the initial
removals were deemed to be without merit. 25 Last, Plaintiffs contend that the facts with respect to
the merits of removal vary from case to case, so according to Plaintiffs, there would be no gain in
judicial efficiency by staying this action. 26
Jefferson Parish also asserts that the removal of these cases by Removing Defendants is a
delaying tactic. 27 The Parish argues that Removing Defendants are stalling in hopes of delaying
any substantive consideration of the issues until after the gubernatorial elections, in the hope that
a new governor who does not support the Parishes in these lawsuits will be elected. 28
C. Moving Defendants’ Arguments in Further Support of the Motion To Stay
In the reply, Moving Defendants reassert that the law supports the granting of a stay,
arguing that any granted stay would “be brief, promote efficiency, avoid inconsistent rulings, and
leave Plaintiffs unharmed.” 29 Moving Defendants argue that Jefferson Parish has failed to show that
Plaintiffs would suffer any prejudice if the motion to stay was granted and urges the Court not to
consider the “hypothetical harm” of the effect of a future gubernatorial election. 30 Moving Defendants
also claim that any stay would be brief, as the decision of the MDL Panel on coordination of pretrial

24

Id. at 3.

25

Id. at 3–4.

26

Id. at 4.

27

Id. at 3–4.

28

Id.

29

Rec. Doc. 21 at 1.

30

Id. at 2.

5

proceedings would likely come before the question of remand was even fully briefed. 31 Moving
Defendants also reassert their argument that the denial of the motion to stay would waste judicial
resources and that the Court should not have to familiarize itself with the intricacies of this case when
it could ultimately be decided by another judge. 32

Last, Moving Defendants argue that the Court should ignore Jefferson Parish’s arguments
relating to the merits of the removal, contending that it has nothing to do with the motion to stay.
However, Moving Defendants still contests Jefferson Parish’s arguments regarding the merits of
removal and asserts that removal is timely. 33
II. Law and Analysis
In Landis v. North American Co., the Supreme Court recognized that “the power to stay
proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the
causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” 34
The Supreme Court noted that “how this can best be done calls for the exercise of judgment, which
must weigh competing interests and maintain an even balance.” 35 Therefore, a district court has
“discretionary power to stay proceedings before it in the control of its docket and in the interests
of justice.” 36 Furthermore, a district court may exercise this discretionary power sua sponte. 37

31

Id. at 3.

32

Id. at 4.

33

Id. at 4–6.

34

299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936).

35

Id. at 254–55.

36

McKnight v. Blanchard, 667 F.2d 477, 479 (5th Cir. 1982).

37

See Begum v. Miner, 213 F.3d 639, at *1 n.1 (citing Murphy v. Uncle Ben’s, Inc., 168 F.3d 734, 737 n. 1 (5th
Cir.1999) (“we have held that the district court may sua sponte stay a suit as a form of abstention.”)

6

Courts within this district have recognized the following factors to consider when deciding
whether to stay an action pending an MDL determination: (1) the potential prejudice to the nonmoving party; (2) the 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. 38
The Manual for Complex Litigation states that “it may be advisable to defer certain matters
until the Panel has the opportunity to rule on transfer.” 39 Furthermore, the Manual notes that the
Panel has often held “that the pendency of potentially dispositive motions is not an impediment to
transfer of actions, because such motions can be addressed to the transferee judge for resolution
after transfer.” 40 “Deference to the MDL court for resolution of these matters provides the
opportunity for the uniformity, consistency, and predictability in litigation that underlies the
multidistrict litigation system.” 41
In the instant case, the Court finds that a temporary stay pending a decision by the MDL
Panel on whether to consolidate the pretrial proceedings for the Parish Oil and Gas cases is
appropriate. Plaintiff will not be unduly prejudiced if proceedings are stayed pending a decision
by the MDL Panel as to whether the cases should be consolidated for the purposes of pretrial
proceedings. The only alleged harm raised by Jefferson Parish is the hypothetical effect of the
upcoming gubernatorial election and how that election could affect whether the State supports

38

See La. Stadium & Exposition Dist. v. Fin. Guar. Ins. Co., No. 09-235, 2009 WL 926982, at *1 (E.D. La. Apr. 2,
2009) (Engelhardt, J.); see also Rizk v. DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., No. 11-2272, 2011 WL 4965498 (E.D. La. Oct.
19, 2011) (Feldman, J.); Weathersby v. Lincoln Elec. Co., No. 03-398, 2003 WL 21088119, at *2 (E.D. La. May 9,
2003) (Livaudais, J.).
39

Manual for Complex Litigation § 20.131, at 221 (4th ed. 2004).

40

Id.

41

Scott v. Bayer Corp., No. 03–2888, 2004 WL 63978, at *1 (E.D. La. Jan. 12, 2004 ) (Fallon, J.) (citing 28 U.S.C. §
1407).

7

Jefferson Parish in this litigation. The Court is not persuaded by this argument and can give little
weight to the potential effect of the hypothetical situation presented in the opposition. Further, if
the MDL Panel denies Removing Defendants’ motion for coordinated pretrial proceedings, any
stay would be relatively brief. On the other hand, Defendants face the burden of litigating fortyone cases over two judicial districts. Furthermore, a stay is advisable for the additional reason that
the interests of judicial economy will be served by a temporary stay, and the risk of inconsistent
rulings in related cases (including on the issue of the appropriateness of remand) will be
minimized. Therefore, the Court will exercise its discretion and stay proceedings pending the MDL
Panel’s determination as to whether the Panel will coordinate pretrial proceedings for all the Parish
Oil and Gas Cases before a single judge.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter is stayed and administratively closed pending
the MDL Panel’s determination regarding whether to coordinate pretrial proceedings for the Parish
Oil and Gas Cases before a single judge.
NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA, this 11th day of June, 2018.
____

_________________________________
NANNETTE JOLIVETTE BROWN
CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8