1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

KILGORE REALTY, LLC, individually 

and on behalf of others similarly 

situated,

Plaintiff,

v.

TRANSOCEAN, LTD.; 

BP, PLC; 

TRANSOCEAN OFFSHORE 

DEEPWATER DRILLING, INC.; 

TRANSOCEAN DEEPWATER, INC; 

BP PRODUCTS NORTH AMERICA, 

INC.; 

BP AMERICA; 

CAMERON INTERNATIONAL 

CORPORATION; and, 

HALLIBURTON ENERGY SERVICES, 

INC., 

Defendants

CASE NO.: 

[Class Action Complaint]

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

KILGORE REALTY, LLC (hereinafter sometimes referred to as 

“Plaintiff”), individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated and files this 

Class Action Complaint and states:

Case 3:10-cv-00156-RS-EMT Document 1 Filed 05/11/10 Page 1 of 15
2

1. Plaintiff Kilgore Realty, LLC is an Alabama corporation which 

regularly conducts business in the State of Florida and maintains an office in 

Navarre, Santa Rosa County, Florida. 

2. Plaintiff Kilgore Realty, LLC manages and/or rents waterfront rental 

property in Florida on behalf of property owners. As a result of the acts and/or 

omissions of the Defendants, as more fully described herein below, Plaintiffs have 

suffered direct damage and loss to their business, income, and other proprietary 

interests.

3. Plaintiff Kilgore Realty, LLC brings the claims in this Class Action 

Complaint for the following defined class: All persons and/or entities engaged in 

the business of managing and/or renting waterfront rental property within the State 

of Alabama and Florida having lost management and/or rental income as a result of 

the negligence or other tortious conduct of the Defendants.

4. 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.

Case 3:10-cv-00156-RS-EMT Document 1 Filed 05/11/10 Page 2 of 15
3

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

corporation doing business in this country, including the Gulf of 

Mexico.

(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) HALLIBURTON ENERGY SERVICES, INC., hereinafter 

referred to as “Halliburton”, 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); 

Case 3:10-cv-00156-RS-EMT Document 1 Filed 05/11/10 Page 3 of 15
4

5. 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 of at least one of the Defendants; 

(2) 28 U.S.C. § 1331, because the claims asserted here in arise under the laws of 

the United States of America.

6. 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:

A. 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, HALLIBURTON, 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, HALLIBURTON, prior to the explosion, was 

engaged in cementing operations of the well and well cap and, upon 

Case 3:10-cv-00156-RS-EMT Document 1 Filed 05/11/10 Page 4 of 15
5

information and belief, 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.

B. 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.

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

solely by the negligence and other tortious conduct 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 

have been unsuccessful. 

8. Plaintiffs further maintain that Defendants were negligent in 

responding to disaster, particularly with respect to downplaying the nature, size 

Case 3:10-cv-00156-RS-EMT Document 1 Filed 05/11/10 Page 5 of 15
6

and extent of the leak and failing to employ adequate responders and/or equipment 

in field to control the oil slick.

9. As a result of the above described incidents, the economic, business, 

and proprietary values of the Plaintiffs’ class have been diminished. In addition, 

Plaintiffs have similarly and will continue to suffer economic losses and other 

damages to include loss of income and loss of use.

10. 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.

11. This incident occurred as a result of the negligence and other tortious 

conduct of Defendants, TRANSOCEAN ENTITIES and/or BP and/or BP 

PRODUCTS. The acts and omissions of the Defendants render them liable to 

Plaintiffs pursuant to the provisions of general maritime law for negligence and 

other theories of liability.

12. 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.

Case 3:10-cv-00156-RS-EMT Document 1 Filed 05/11/10 Page 6 of 15
7

13. 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.

14. Plaintiffs on behalf themselves and all others similarly situated, 

demands that Defendants be required to compensate Plaintiffs for all damages 

incurred since the incident. Moreover, Plaintiffs seek punitive damages on behalf 

of the class.

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

a. Numerosity of the class

15. 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

16. 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;

Case 3:10-cv-00156-RS-EMT Document 1 Filed 05/11/10 Page 7 of 15
8

B. Whether Defendants’ actions were negligent or otherwise tortious; 

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

17. Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered similar harm as a result of 

Defendants’ actions.

d. Adequacy of Representation

18. 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

19. 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 

Case 3:10-cv-00156-RS-EMT Document 1 Filed 05/11/10 Page 8 of 15
9

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. 

20. 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;

b. The prosecution of separate actions by individual Class members 

would also create the risk of adjudications with respect to them that 

Case 3:10-cv-00156-RS-EMT Document 1 Filed 05/11/10 Page 9 of 15
10

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.

21. The above-described incidents were caused solely by the negligence 

of Defendants, TRANSOCEAN ENTITES and/or BP and/or BP PRODUCTS and 

HALLIBURTON, 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;

Case 3:10-cv-00156-RS-EMT Document 1 Filed 05/11/10 Page 10 of 15
11

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; 

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. 

Case 3:10-cv-00156-RS-EMT Document 1 Filed 05/11/10 Page 11 of 15
12

22. 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. 

23. 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. 

24. 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.

25. 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 

Case 3:10-cv-00156-RS-EMT Document 1 Filed 05/11/10 Page 12 of 15
13

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

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

26. 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, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly 

situated, prays that the Defendants, jointly, severally, as follows:

a. An order 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-00156-RS-EMT Document 1 Filed 05/11/10 Page 13 of 15
14

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. 

JURY DEMAND

The Plaintiff demands a jury trial on all such issues triable before a jury.

SUBSEQUENT AMENDMENT

Plaintiff moves this court to allow amendment of this complaint to add 

additional defendants and counts as discovery is accomplished.

Done this 11th day of May 2010 in Pensacola, Escambia County, Florida.

/s/ Eric D. Stevenson____ 

Eric D. Stevenson

Eric D. Stevenson, PA

Florida Bar No. 144495

/s/ David Lee Sellers____

David Lee Sellers

David Lee Sellers, PA

Case 3:10-cv-00156-RS-EMT Document 1 Filed 05/11/10 Page 14 of 15
15

Florida Bar No. 338281

919 North 12th Avenue

Pensacola, Florida 32501

(850) 434-3111

(850) 434-1188 – Facsimile 

Case 3:10-cv-00156-RS-EMT Document 1 Filed 05/11/10 Page 15 of 15