UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

DESTIN FISHING FLEET, INC.

CHARTER BOAT SUNRISE, INC.,

CHARTER BOAT SEASCAPE, 

INC., and FIRST LIGHT 

ENTERPRISES, INC., Individually 

and on behalf of themselves and all 

others similarly situated

 Plaintiffs

Versus

BP, plc, BP PRODUCTS NORTH 

AMERICA, INC., BP AMERICA, INC., 

TRANSOCEAN, LTD., 

TRANSOCEAN OFFSHORE 

DEEPWATER 

DRILLING, INC., TRANSOCEAN 

DEEPWATER, 

INC., HALLIBURTON ENERGY 

SERVICES, INC. 

AND CAMERON INTERNATIONAL

CORPORATION 17 f/k/a COOPER 

CAMERON 

CORPORATION

CASE NO.

__________________________

JURY DEMAND

CLASS ACTION

 Defendants

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Plaintiffs Destin Fishing Fleet, Inc. and Charter Boat Sunrise ("Plaintiffs"), 

individually and as representatives of the class defined herein (the "Class"), bring this action 

against the defendants identified below ("Defendants"), and allege as follows:

INTRODUCTION

1. This is a class action, brought pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure, to recover damages suffered by Plaintiffs and the Class members as a result of the 

oil spill that resulted from the explosion and fire aboard, and subsequent sinking of the oil rig 

Case 3:10-cv-00160-RV-EMT Document 1 Filed 05/13/10 Page 1 of 13
2

Deepwater Horizon on April 20, 2010, at about 10:00 p.m. CST on the outer Continental 

Shelf, off the U.S. coast, in the Gulf of Mexico.

PARTIES

2. Plaintiff Destin Fishing Fleet, Inc. (“Fleet”), is an incorporated body of 

fisherman who reside in and do business in Destin, Florida, within this District. This Plaintiff 

is a representative corporation of specific fisherman who own an interest in and dock their 

boats at the Destin Fleet Fishing Marina in Destin, Florida, through their stock ownership in 

the Fleet. The Fleet owns both real and riparian interests in land in a long-term submerged 

land lease on the Destin Harbor in Okaloosa County, Florida.

3. Plaintiff Charter Boat Sunrise, Inc. (“Sunrise”) is indicative and representative 

of most commercial charter boat businesses in the Destin, Florida in the sense that it is a 

corporate owner of a boat operated by a sole stockholder. That stockholder is also the boat’s 

licensed Captain. The boat is operated for the purpose of providing services to vacationers 

and for commercial fishing enterprises all operating out of Destin, Florida. Sunrise is a 

Florida corporation doing business in Okaloosa County, Florida within this District. Its 

Captain is Charles K. “Kelly” Windes. Captain Kelly Windes is President of the Fleet.

4. Plaintiff Charter Boat Seascape, Inc. (“Seascape”) is indicative and 

representative of most commercial charter boat businesses in the Destin, Florida in the sense 

that it is a corporate owner of a boat operated by David Windes who is also the boat’s 

licensed Captain. The boat is operated for the purpose of providing services to vacationers 

and for commercial fishing enterprises all operating out of Destin, Florida. Seascape is a 

Florida corporation doing business in Okaloosa County, Florida within the District. Its 

Captain is David Windes. Captain David Windes is President of the Destin Fishing Co-op, 

and his boat and his personal and corporate claim is indicative of the more than 100 Captains 

Case 3:10-cv-00160-RV-EMT Document 1 Filed 05/13/10 Page 2 of 13
3

and owners within the Destin Fishing Co-op.

5. Plaintiff First Light Enterprises, Inc. (“First Light”) is indicative and 

representative of most commercial charter boat businesses in the Destin, Florida in the sense 

that it is a corporate owner of a boat operated by its stockholder who is also the boat’s 

licensed Captain. The boat is operated for the purpose of providing services to vacationers 

and for commercial fishing enterprises all operating out of Destin, Florida. First Light is a 

Florida corporation doing business in Okaloosa County, Florida within this District. Its 

Captain is Steve Haeusler. Captain Haeusler is Vice-President of the Fleet.

6. Plaintiffs earn their livelihoods chartering recreational fishing excursions and 

other commercial enterprises related to the fishing and vacation industries on the coast of and 

in the waters of Florida in the Gulf of Mexico and in the "coastal zone" (as that term is 

defined in 43 U.S.C. §133 1 (e)) (the "Coastal Zone"). As a result of the events described in 

this complaint, they have suffered damages that are more fully described below.

7. Defendants are as follows:

(a) Transocean, Ltd., ("Transocean, Ltd.") a foreign corporation doing business in 

the State of Florida and within this district;

(b) Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc. ("Transocean Offshore"), a 

foreign corporation doing business in the State of Florida and within this district;

(c) Transocean Deepwater, Inc. ("Transocean Deepwater"), a foreign corporation 

doing business in the State of Florida and within this district;

(d) BP, plc ("BP"), a foreign corporation doing business in the State of Florida and 

within this district;

(e) BP Products North America, Inc. ("BP Products") a foreign corporation doing 

business in the State of Florida and within this district;

Case 3:10-cv-00160-RV-EMT Document 1 Filed 05/13/10 Page 3 of 13
4

(f) BP America, Inc. ("BP America"), a foreign corporation doing business in the 

State of Florida and within this district;

(g) Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. ("Halliburton"), a foreign corporation doing 

business in the State of Florida and within this district; and

(h) Cameron International Corporation f/k/a Cooper-Cameron Corporation

("Cameron"), a foreign corporation doing business in the State of Florida and within this 

district.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

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

1332(d)(2), because the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $5,000,000, 

exclusive of interest and costs, and it is a class action brought by citizens of different states.

9. Venue in this district is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a), because a 

substantial part of events or omissions giving rise to the claims asserted herein occurred in 

this district.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

10. Transocean, Ltd., Transocean Offshore and Transocean Deepwater 

(collectively

"Transocean") are the owners and/or operators of the Deepwater Horizon, a semi-submersible 

mobile drilling rig, which was performing completion operations for BP, BP Products and BP 

America on the outer Continental Shelf, at the site from which the oil spill now originates, on 

April 20, 2010.

11. BP, BP Products and BP America (collectively "BP") are the holders of a lease 

granted by the Minerals Management Service that allows BP to drill for oil and perform oilproduction-related operations at the site of the and oil spill, and on April 20, 2010 operated 

Case 3:10-cv-00160-RV-EMT Document 1 Filed 05/13/10 Page 4 of 13
5

the oil well that is the source of the oil spill.

12. Upon information and belief, Cameron manufactured and/or supplied the 

Deepwater Horizon’s blow-out-preventors (“BOP’s”) that failed to operate upon the 

explosion, which should have prevented the oil spill. The BOP’s were defective because they 

failed to operate as intended. 

13. Halliburton was engaged in cementing operations of the well and well cap and, 

upon information and belief, improperly and negligently performed these duties, increasing 

the pressure at the well and contributing to the fire, explosion and resulting oil spill.

14. At all times material hereto, the Deepwater Horizon was owned, manned, 

possessed, managed, controlled, chartered and/or operated by Transocean and/or BP.

15. The fire and explosion on the Deepwater Horizon, its sinking and the resulting 

oil spill were caused by the negligence and/or gross negligence of Defendants, which renders 

them liable jointly, severally and in-solido to Plaintiffs and the Class members for all their 

damages. 

16. The injuries and damages suffered by Plaintiffs and the Class members were 

caused by Defendants’ violations of numerous statutes and regulations, including, but not 

limited to, statutes and regulations issued by OSHA and the United States Coast Guard, 

including the requirements to test the sub-sea BOP’s at regular intervals.

17. Defendants knew of the dangers associated with deep water drilling and failed 

to take appropriate measures to prevent damage to Plaintiffs, the Class members, Florida’s 

and the Gulf of Mexico’s marine and coastal environments and estuarine areas, and the 

Coastal Zone, where Plaintiffs and the Class members work and earn a living.

18. The spilled oil would not simply evaporate off of the surface of the water and 

is causing dangerous environmental contamination of the Gulf of Mexico and its shorelines, 

Case 3:10-cv-00160-RV-EMT Document 1 Filed 05/13/10 Page 5 of 13
6

threatening Florida’s sensitive wetlands and estuarine areas.

19. The oil spill and the contamination have caused and will continue to cause loss 

of revenue to persons (and businesses) who are being prevented from using Gulf of Mexico 

and Florida’s Coastal Zone for diverse activities, including work and to earn a living.

20. There are many other potential affects from the oil spill that have not yet 

become known, and Plaintiffs reserve the right amend this Complaint once additional 

information becomes available. 

CLASS DEFINITION

21. Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and all others similarly 

situated, who are members of the following Class:

All Florida residents who own, operate and/or manage charter fishing or 

marina operations and derive income from the Florida “Coastal Zone,” as that 

term is defined in 43 U.S.C. §1331(e), and who have sustained any loss and/or 

damages as a result of the Deepwater Horizon explosion and the resulting oil 

spill. Excluded from the Class are the officers and directors of any of the

Defendants, any judge or judicial officer assigned to this matter and his or her 

immediate family, and any legal representative, successor, or assign of any

excluded persons or entities.

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

22. Certification of the Class pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure is appropriate.

23. The proposed Class is so numerous that joinder is impractical. The disposition 

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

the parties and the Court.

24. 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:

Case 3:10-cv-00160-RV-EMT Document 1 Filed 05/13/10 Page 6 of 13
7

a. Whether Defendants caused and/or contributed to the fire, explosion and oil 

spill;

b. Whether Defendants' actions were negligent and/or grossly negligent;

c. Whether the fire, explosion and oil spill have caused environmental or other 

damage; and

d. The amount of damages Plaintiffs and the Class members should receive in

compensation.

25. Plaintiffs and the Class members have suffered similar harm as a result of

Defendants' actions.

26. Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the 

members of the Class because their interests do not conflict with the interests of the Class 

members they seek to represent. Plaintiffs have no claims antagonistic to those of the Class. 

Plaintiffs have retained counsel competent and experienced in complex class actions and 

maritime and environmental litigation.

27. 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 an inequitable 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, 

Case 3:10-cv-00160-RV-EMT Document 1 Filed 05/13/10 Page 7 of 13
8

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

28. The various claims asserted in the action are also certifiable under the 

provisions of Rules 23(b)(1) and/or 23(b)(3) 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

members, thus establishing incompatible standards of conduct for Defendants;

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

create the risk of adjudications with respect to them that would, as 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. The questions of law or fact common to the members of the Class predominate 

over any questions affecting only individual members, and that a class action is superior to

other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy.

COUNT I

NEGLIGENCE

29. Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the Class members, repeat, reiterate, 

and reallege each and every allegation set forth above.

30. The fire, explosion and resulting oil spill was caused by the concurrent 

negligence of the Defendants.

31. Defendants owed a duty of reasonable care to Plaintiffs and the members of 

the Class in the operation and maintenance of Deepwater Horizon.

32. Defendants breached that duty to use reasonable care by:

Case 3:10-cv-00160-RV-EMT Document 1 Filed 05/13/10 Page 8 of 13
9

a. Failing to properly operate the Deepwater Horizon;

b. Operating the Deepwater Horizon in such a manner that a fire and explosion 

occurred onboard, resulting in an oil spill;

c. Failing to properly inspect the Deepwater Horizon to assure that its equipment 

and personnel were fit for their intended purpose;

d. Acting in a careless and negligent manner without due regard for the safety of 

others;

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

to the safe operations of the Deepwater Horizon which, if they had been so promulgated,

implemented and enforced, would have averted the fire, explosion, sinking and oil spill;

f. Operating the Deepwater Horizon with untrained and unlicensed personnel;

g. Inadequate and negligent training and hiring of' personnel;

h. Failing to take appropriate action to avoid or mitigate the accident;

i. Negligent implementation of policies and procedures to safely conduct 

offshore operations in the Gulf of Mexico;

j. Failing to ascertain that the Deepwater Horizon and its equipment were free 

from defects and/or in proper working order;

k. Failing to timely warn;

l. Failing to timely bring the oil release under control;

m. Failing to provide appropriate accident prevention equipment;

n. Failing to observe and read gauges that would have indicated excessive 

pressures in the well;

o. Failing to appropriately react to danger signs;

p. Providing BOP’s that did not work properly;

Case 3:10-cv-00160-RV-EMT Document 1 Filed 05/13/10 Page 9 of 13
10

q. Conducting well and well cap cementing operations improperly;

r. Acting in a manner that justifies imposition of punitive damages; and

s. Such other acts of negligence and omissions as will be shown at the trial of the 

matter; all of which acts are in violation of the laws of Florida and Federal law applicable on 

the outer Continental Shelf.

33. The negligent actions of Defendants proximately caused damage to Plaintiffs 

and the Class members, which entitles them to adequate compensation in amounts determined 

by the trier of fact.

COUNT II

GROSS NEGLIGENCE

34. Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the Class members, repeat, reiterate, 

and reallege each and every allegation set forth above.

35. Defendants were grossly negligent in their operation and maintenance of 

Deepwater Horizon, which proximately caused damages to the Plaintiffs and the Class.

36. As such, Plaintiffs are entitled to adequate compensation in amounts 

determined by the trier of fact.

COUNT III

FLORIDA POLLUTANT DISCHARGE PREVENTION AND CONTROL ACT

FL. STAT. ANN. § 376.011 et. seq.

37. Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the Class members, repeat, reiterate, 

and reallege each and every allegation set forth above.

38. The Pollutant Discharge Prevention and Control Act prohibits the discharge of 

pollutants into or upon any coastal waters, estuaries, tidal flats, beaches, and lands adjoining 

the seacoast of the State of Florida. Fl. Stat. Ann. §376.041.

Case 3:10-cv-00160-RV-EMT Document 1 Filed 05/13/10 Page 10 of 13
11

39. Any person may bring a cause of action against a responsible party for 

damages resulting from a discharge or other condition of pollution. In any such suit, it shall 

not be necessary for the person to plead or prove negligence in any form or manner, but only 

to plead or prove the fact of the prohibited discharge or other pollutive condition and that it 

occurred. Fl. Stat. Ann. § 376.205.

40. The Pollution Discharge Prevention and Control Act imposes liability upon a 

responsible party for all damages for any destruction to or loss of any real or personal 

property as the direct result of the discharge of a pollutant. Fl. Stat. Ann. § 376.12, § 

376.031(5).

41. The Coast Guard has named BP as the responsible party. Therefore, BP is 

liable pursuant to Section 376.12 for all the damages that result from the oil spill. 

42. In addition to the damages recoverable as a result of the oil spill, an affected 

party may be awarded costs of litigation, including reasonable attorney’s and expert witness 

fees. Fl. Stat. Ann. § 376.205.

43. As such, Plaintiffs and the Class are entitled to all damages they have suffered 

at an amount to be proven at trial.

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury on all issues so triable.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs and the Class members demand judgment against 

Defendants, jointly, severally as follows:

a. An order certifying the Class for the purpose of going forward with any one or 

all of the causes of action alleged herein; appointing Plaintiffs as Class Representatives; and

Case 3:10-cv-00160-RV-EMT Document 1 Filed 05/13/10 Page 11 of 13
12

appointing undersigned counsel as counsel for the Class;

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

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

one of this Court's bases of jurisdiction to hear this case;

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, including expert witness fees;

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

laws and any relief the Court deems just and appropriate; and

g. A trial by jury as to all Defendants.

Respectfully submitted,

CHESSER & BARR, P.A.

_/s/ D. Michael Chesser______________

D. Michael Chesser

1201 Eglin Parkway

Shalimar, FL 32579

Phone: 850.651.9944

Fax: 850.651.6084

M. Clay Ragsdale

RAGSDALE LLC

517 Beacon Parkway West

Birmingham, AL 35209

Phone: 205.290.6800

Fax: 205.290.6810

Scott E. Poynter, AR Bar # 90077

Jack T. Patterson, II, AR Bar # 95012

Christopher D. Jennings, AR Bar # 2006306

Gina M. Dougherty, AR Bar # 98168

EMERSON POYNTER LLP

Case 3:10-cv-00160-RV-EMT Document 1 Filed 05/13/10 Page 12 of 13
13

The Museum Center

500 President Clinton Ave., Ste. 305

Little Rock, AR 72201

Phone: (501) 907-2555

Fax: (501) 907-2556

John G. Emerson, TX Bar # 06602600

EMERSON POYNTER LLP

830 Apollo Lane

Houston, TX 77058

Phone: (281) 488-8854

Fax: (281) 488-8867

Case 3:10-cv-00160-RV-EMT Document 1 Filed 05/13/10 Page 13 of 13