1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

JOHN T. HARRIS, individually and for FV ST. 

ANDREW BAY - CHALLENGER, INC and on 

behalf of others similarly situated

Plaintiff, 

v.

TRANSOCEAN, LTD., BP, PLC, 

TRANSOCEAN, LTD, (TRANSOCEAN ENTITY), 

TRANSOCEAN OFFSHORE DEEPWATER 

DRILLING, INC., (TRANSOCEAN ENTITY), 

TRANSOCEAN DEEPWATER, INC, 

(TRANSOCEAN ENTITY), BP PRODUCTS 

NORTH AMERICA, INC., BP AMERICA; 

CAMERON INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION 

and, HALIBURTON ENERGY SERVICES, INC., 

 Defendants 

3:10-cv-129 

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

 COMES NOW the Plaintiff, John T. Harris, (hereinafter sometimes referred to as 

“Plaintiff”), individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is a person of the full age 

of majority and resident of Bay County, Florida and respectfully represents as follows: 

1. Defendants herein are: 

 (A) BP, PLC, BP AMERICA and BP PRODUCTS NORTH AMERICA, INC 

hereinafter referred to collectively as “BP”, are foreign corporations doing 

business in this country, including the Gulf of Mexico. 

(B) TRANSOCEAN, LTD, (TRANSOCEAN ENTITY), a foreign corporation 

doing business in this country, including the Gulf of Mexico. 

Case 3:10-cv-00129-MCR-MD Document 1 Filed 04/28/10 Page 1 of 11
 

2 

(C) TRANSOCEAN OFFSHORE DEEPWATER DRILLING, INC., 

(TRANSOCEAN ENTITY), a foreign corporation doing business in this country, 

including the Gulf of Mexico. 

(D) TRANSOCEAN DEEPWATER, INC., (TRANSOCEAN ENTITY), a foreign 

corporation doing business in this country, including the Gulf of Mexico. 

(E) BP PRODUCTS NORTH AMERICA, INC., hereinafter referred to as “BP 

Products”, a foreign corporation doing business in this country, including the Gulf 

of Mexico. 

(F) HALIBURTON ENERGY SERVICES, INC., hereinafter referred to as 

“Haliburton”, a foreign corporation doing business in this country, including the 

Gulf of Mexico. 

(G) CAMERON INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION f/k/a COOPER 

CAMERON CORPORATION (CAMERON), a foreign corporation that 

manufactured, supplied and/or maintained defective and/or inoperable Blow Out 

Preventers (BOP); 

2. This court has jurisdiction over this class action pursuant to (1) 28 U.S.C. § 

1332(d)(2), as amended by the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, Pub. L. 109-2, because the 

matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $5,000,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs, 

and is a class action brought by the citizens of a state that is different from the state where at 

Case 3:10-cv-00129-MCR-MD Document 1 Filed 04/28/10 Page 2 of 11
 

3 

least one of the Defendants is Inc. or does business; (2) 28 U.S.C. § 1331, because the claims 

asserted here in arise under the laws of the United States of America. 

3. Plaintiff, John T. Harris, is a commercial fisherman in the Gulf of Mexico in the 

business of catching and selling, among other species, gulf Red Snapper and Grouper/Tilefish, 

including their respective subspecies. 

4. The Defendants, are justly and truly indebted unto your Plaintiff, individually, and on 

behalf of all others similarly situated, for the following reason, to-wit: 

5. At all material times, Plaintiff was employed as a commercial fisherman in the Gulf of 

Mexico. Plaintiff, by and through his fleet of vessels, holds a commercial Gulf reef fish permit 

as well as Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ) shares thereby allowing him to commercially harvest 

(and sell) a percentage of the applicable yearly commercial quota of gulf Red Snapper and 

Grouper/Tilefish as set by the National Marine Fisheries Service. Plaintiff seeks to act as Class 

Representative for all commercial fisherman in the Gulf of Mexico who hold a Gulf reef fish 

permit and IFQ shares for gulf Red Snapper and Grouper/Tilefish. 

6. TRANSOCEAN ENTITIES, employed workers aboard the offshore drilling vessel, 

DEEPWATER HORIZON, a semi-submersible mobile drilling unit that was owned and/or 

operated and/or chartered and/or controlled by TRANSOCEAN ENTITIES and/or BP and/or BP 

PRODUCTS and/or BP AMERICA at all material times herein. Defendant herein, 

HALIBURTON, prior to the explosion, was engaged in cementing operations of the well and 

well cap and, upon information and belief, improperly and negligently performed these duties, 

which was a cause of the explosion. Defendant herein, HALIBURTON, prior to the explosion, 

was engaged in cementing operations of the well and well cap and, upon information and belief, 

Case 3:10-cv-00129-MCR-MD Document 1 Filed 04/28/10 Page 3 of 11
 

4 

improperly and negligently performed these duties, which was cause of the explosion. Defendant 

CAMERON manufactured, supplied, installed and/or maintained defective BOP’s that failed to 

operate and control the oil leak. 

 7. On or about April 20, 2010 at approximately 10 p.m., on the DEEPWATER 

HORIZON, which is located 50 miles southeast of Venice, Louisiana, without warning and all of 

a sudden, an explosion occurred on the vessel, causing its crewmembers to be thrown overboard 

and killing several crewmembers aboard the vessel. 

 8. The accident was caused by no fault of the Plaintiffs and was caused solely by the 

negligence of Defendants as more fully set forth herein. Since the time of the accident a remotely 

operated vehicle continues to carry out “multiple attempts” to activate the subsea blowout 

preventer to stop the well from leaking an estimated thousand barrels of crude per day into the 

Gulf. To date the attempts to shut off the well by use of the subsea blowout preventer has been 

unsuccessful. 

 9. Plaintiffs further maintain that Defendants were negligent in responding to disaster, 

particularly with respect to downplaying the nature, size and extent of the leak and failing to 

employ adequate responders and/or equipment in field to control the oil slick. 

 10. As a result of the above described incidents, the fishery in the Gulf of Mexico (along 

with other natural resources) has been harmed to the extent that Plaintiff, John T. Harris and all 

others similarly situated have been prevented from fishing in the Gulf anywhere near the 

explosion site. The area around the explosion site is/was one of the most prolific fishing grounds 

for Plaintiff and where a vast majority of the commercial Red Snapper and Grouper/Tilefish 

Case 3:10-cv-00129-MCR-MD Document 1 Filed 04/28/10 Page 4 of 11
 

5 

were and would be harvested. As a result, Plaintiff and others similarly situated have sustained 

economic harm and will so suffer same in the future. 

 11. At all times material hereto, the vessel which exploded, was owned, navigated in 

navigable waters, manned, possessed, managed, controlled, chartered and/or operated by 

Defendant, TRANSOCEAN ENTITIES and/or BP and/or BP PRODUCTS. 

 12. This incident occurred as a result of the negligence of Defendants, TRANSOCEAN 

ENTITIES and/or BP and/or BP PRODUCTS. These acts of negligence render the defendants 

liable to Plaintiff pursuant to the provisions of general maritime law for negligence. 

 13. The explosion was caused by Defendants’ violation of numerous statutes and 

regulations, including, but not limited to, statutes and regulations issued by OSHA and the 

United States Coast Guard including the requirement to test the subsea blowout preventer every 

two weeks. 

 14. Defendant BP, BP PRODUCTS and BP AMERICA knew of the dangers of deep 

water drilling and failed to take appropriate measures to protect workers and the environment. 

 15. Plaintiff, John T. Harris, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, 

demands that Defendant, TRANSOCEAN, provide the cost of cleanup of the 1000+ barrels of 

crude oil lost daily since the incident. 

Case 3:10-cv-00129-MCR-MD Document 1 Filed 04/28/10 Page 5 of 11
 

6 

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

a. Numerosity of the class

 16. The proposed class is so numerous that joinder is impractical. The disposition of the 

claims asserted herein through this class action that will be more efficient and will benefit the 

parties and the court. 

b. Predominance of common Questions of Fact and Law

 17. There is a well-defined community of interest in that the questions of law and fact 

common to the class predominate over questions affecting only individual Class members and 

include, but are not limited to, the following: 

 A. Whether Defendants caused and/or contributed to the explosion and oil spill; 

 B. Whether Defendants’ actions were negligent; 

C. Whether or not the explosion and oil spill have caused environmental or other 

damage; and, 

D. The amount of damages Plaintiff and the Class members should receive any 

compensation. 

c. Typicality

 18. Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered similar harm as a result of Defendants’ 

actions. 

d. Adequacy of Representation

Case 3:10-cv-00129-MCR-MD Document 1 Filed 04/28/10 Page 6 of 11
 

7 

 19. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interest of the members 

of the class because his interests do not conflict with the interests of the Class Members they 

seek to represent. Plaintiff has no claim antagonistic to those of the class. Plaintiff has retained 

counsel competent and experienced in complex class actions. 

Superiority

 20. A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient 

adjudication of this litigation since individual litigation of the claims of all Class Members is 

impracticable. Even if every Class Member could afford individual litigation, the court system 

could not. It would be unduly burdensome to this court in which individual litigation of 

thousands of cases would proceed. Individual litigation presents a potential for inconsistent or 

contradictory judgments and the prospect of a race for the courthouse and an equitable allocation 

of recovery among those with equally meritorious claims. Individual litigation increases the 

expenses and delay to all parties and the court system in resolving the legal and factual issues 

common to all claims related to the Defendants’ conduct alleged herein. By contrast, a class 

action presents far fewer management difficulties and provides the benefit of a single 

adjudication, economies of scale, and comprehensive supervision by a single court. 

 21. The various claims asserted in the action are certifiable under the provisions of Rule 

23 (b)(1) and/or 23(b)(2) of the federal Rules of Civil Procedure because: 

a. The prosecution of separate actions by thousands of individual Class Members 

would create a risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to 

individual Class member, loss of establishing incompatible standards of conduct 

for Defendant; 

Case 3:10-cv-00129-MCR-MD Document 1 Filed 04/28/10 Page 7 of 11
 

8 

b. The prosecution of separate actions by individual Class members would also 

create the risk of adjudications with respect to them that would, a practical matter, 

be dispositive of the interests of the other Class Members who are not parties to 

such adjudications and would substantially impair or impede their ability to 

protect their interests; and, 

c. Defendants have acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the 

entire Class, thereby making appropriate final declaratory and injunctive relief 

with respect to the class as a whole appropriate. 

 22. The above-described incidents were caused solely by the negligence of Defendants, 

TRANSOCEAN ENTITES and/or BP and/or BP PRODUCTS and HALIBURTON, through 

their agents, servants and employees, which are more particularly described as follows: 

 a. Failing to properly operate the Deepwater Horizon; 

 b. Failing to properly supervise employees upon the Deepwater Horizon; 

c. Failing to properly train and/or supervise Plaintiff and other employees upon 

the Deepwater Horizon; 

d. Failing to properly inspect to assure that the Deepwater Horizon equipment and 

personnel were fit and utilized for their intended purpose; 

e. Failing to provide sufficient personnel to perform operations aboard the 

Deepwater Horizon; 

f. Failing to exercise due care and caution in the operation of the Deepwater 

Horizon; 

Case 3:10-cv-00129-MCR-MD Document 1 Filed 04/28/10 Page 8 of 11
 

9 

g. Failing to promulgate, implement and enforce rules and regulations pertaining 

to the safe operations of the Deepwater Horizon day wore operating and 

constructing at the time of the explosion; 

h. Inadequate and negligent training and hiring in the construction and 

maintenance and operation of the Deepwater Horizon; 

i. Failing to ascertain that the Deepwater Horizon was free from defects and/or in 

proper working order; 

j. Failure to timely bring the release under control; 

k. Failure to react to danger signs; and, such other acts of negligence and 

omissions as will be shown at the trial of this matter; 

l. Other acts of negligence which will be shown more fully at trial. 

 23. In the further alternative, Plaintiff, reiterating and realleging each and every 

allegation set forth above, as though set forth herein in extensor, avers the applicability of the 

doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. 

 24. In addition, and any alternative, any explosion and resulting oil released was caused 

by defective equipment which was in the care, custody, and control of Defendants. Defendants 

knew or should have known of these defects and Defendants are, therefore, liable for them. 

 25. The damages to Plaintiff and the Class Members were also caused by or aggravated 

by the fact that Defendants failed to properly respond to the release and take necessary actions to 

mitigate the danger surrounding community and/or to timely and adequately warn of the release 

of oil. 

Case 3:10-cv-00129-MCR-MD Document 1 Filed 04/28/10 Page 9 of 11
 

10 

 26. In addition to the negligent and/or wanton actions described above, and in the 

alternative thereto the injuries and damages suffered by Plaintiff and the Class Members were 

caused by the acts and/or omissions of the Defendants that are beyond proof by the Plaintiffs and 

the Class Members, but which are within the knowledge and control of the Defendants, there 

being no other possible conclusion that the explosion and release of oil resulted from the 

negligence of Defendants. Furthermore, the explosion and the resultant oil released would not 

have occurred had the Defendants exercise the high degree of care and post on them and 

Plaintiffs, therefore, plead the doctrine of the res ipsa loquitor. 

 27. Plaintiff and the Class Members are entitled to a judgment finding Defendants liable 

to Plaintiff and the Class Members for damages suffered as a result of Defendants’ negligence

and/or wantoness and awarding Plaintiff and the Class Members adequate compensation 

therefore in amounts determined by the trier of fact. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, John T. Harris, individually, and on behalf of all others 

similarly situated, pray that the Defendants, jointly, severally, as follows: 

a. An ordered certifying the class for the purpose of the going forward with any 

one or all of the causes of action alleged herein; appointing Plaintiff as the class 

representative; and appointing undersigned counsel as counsel for the class; 

b. Economic and compensatory damages in the amounts to be determined at trial, 

but not less than the $5,000,000.00 required by the Class Action Fairness Act 

which establishes the Court’s jurisdiction to hear this case.

Case 3:10-cv-00129-MCR-MD Document 1 Filed 04/28/10 Page 10 of 11
 

11 

c. Punitive damages; 

d. Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the maximum rate allowable by 

law; 

e. Attorney’s fees and costs of litigation;

f. Such other and further relief available under all applicable state and federal 

laws and any relief the court deems just and appropriate, specifically the Oil 

Pollution Act of 1990 (33 U.S.C. 2701, et seq); and 

g. A trial by jury as to all Defendants. 

 Respectfully submitted, 

 

 /s/ Bobby J. Bradford 

 BOBBY J. BRADFORD 

 Florida Bar No.: 0173223 

 Aylstock, Witkin, Kreis & Overholtz, PLLC 

 803 North Palafox Street 

 Pensacola, Florida 32501 

 Telephone: (850) 916-7450 

 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

 -and- 

 

 MATHEW B. RICHARDSON (FL Bar # 0581895) 

 JACKSON, FOSTER & RICHARDSON, LLC 

 P.O. Box 2225 

Mobile, AL 36652 

T.: 251-433-6699 

F.: 251-433-6127 

mat@jacksonfosterlaw.com

Case 3:10-cv-00129-MCR-MD Document 1 Filed 04/28/10 Page 11 of 11