1 

18480081v1 0917083 73724 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN IDSITRICT OF FLORIDA 

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION 

SCOTT CARSWELL, JULIE CARSWELL, 

KENT 

McCOY, JANINE McCOY, and ROBERT 

HOWARD, individually and as representatives of 

similarly situated persons, 

 Plaintiffs, 

vs. 

LISA ECHEVERRI, as Executive Director of the 

Florida Department of Revenue, acting in her 

official capacity, and BP, plc; BP PRODUCTS 

NORTH AMERICA, INC.; BP AMERICA, 

INC.; BP EXPLORATION AND 

PRODUCTION, INC.; BP AMERICAN 

PRODUCTION COMPANY; TRANSOCEAN, 

LTD; TRANSOCEAN OFFSHORE 

DEEPWATER DRILLING, INC.; 

TRANSOCEAN DEEPWATER, 

INC.;TRANSOCEAN HOLDINGS, LLC; 

TRITON ASSET LEASING GMBH; 

HALLIBURTON ENERGY SERVICES, INC.; 

CAMERON INTERNATIONAL 

CORPORATION f/k/a COOPER CAMERON 

CORPORATION; ANDARKO PETROLEUM 

CORPORATION; ANDARKO E&P 

COMPANY, L.P.; MOEX OFFSHORE 2007, 

LLC; M-I, LLC; DRIL-QUIP, INC.; MITSUI 

OIL EXPLORATION; and HYUNDAI HEAVY 

INDUSTRIES CO., LTD., INC., 

 Defendants 

CASE NO.:4:10-cv-00486- SPM-WCS 

TRANSOCEAN’S AMENDED NOTICE OF REMOVAL

Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling Inc., Transocean Deepwater Inc., Transocean 

Holdings LLC, and Triton Asset Leasing GmbH (“Transocean”), hereby amends its Notice of 

Removal filed on November 1, 2010 (Rec. Doc. 1), as follows: 

Case 4:10-cv-00486-SPM -WCS Document 10 Filed 11/10/10 Page 1 of 9
2 

18480081v1 0917083 73724 

A. Original Grounds of Removal 

 Transocean re-avers and re-alleges the allegations made in its original Notice of 

Removal (Rec. Doc. 1) as if pleaded in full herein. 

B. Timeliness of Amended Notice of Removal 

This amended notice is filed within 30 days from the service of the First Amended 

Complaint and is therefore timely filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b). 

C. The Oil Pollution Act 

1. This case is properly removed because this Court has federal question jurisdiction 

under the Oil Pollution Act (“OPA”) over the claims alleged in the Complaint. See 33 U.S.C. § 

2717(b). Congress enacted OPA in the wake of the Exxon Valdez oil spill to provide a uniform, 

federal law governing the discharge of oil spills in the navigable waters of the United States and 

to compensate innocent victims. Gatlin Oil Co. v. United States, 169 F.3d 207, 209 (4th Cir. 

1999). The OPA provides a comprehensive statutory framework for parties claiming damages 

caused by oil spills in navigable waters. See 33 U.S.C. § 2701, et seq.

2. OPA displaces claims pleaded by Plaintiff that seek recovery of damages that are 

recoverable exclusively under the OPA. South Port Marine, LLC v. Gulf Oil Ltd. P’ship, 234 

F.3d 58, 65 (1st Cir. 2000) (“Congress intended the OPA to be the exclusive federal law 

governing oil spills.”); Gabarick v. Laurin Mar. (America) Inc., 623 F. Supp. 2d 741, 750-51 

(E.D. La. 2009) (“This Court finds . . . that OPA preempts general maritime law claims that are 

recoverable under OPA.”); Tanguis v. M/V WESTCHESTER, 153 F. Supp. 2d 859, 867 (E.D. La. 

2001) (stating that the OPA “represents Congress’s attempt to provide a comprehensive 

framework in the area of marine oil pollution.”) (citing Rice v. Harken Exploration Co., 89 F. 

Case 4:10-cv-00486-SPM -WCS Document 10 Filed 11/10/10 Page 2 of 9
3 

18480081v1 0917083 73724 

Supp. 2d 820, 822 (N.D. Tex. 1999)); see also United States v. Bodenger, No. 03, 272, 2003 U.S. 

Dist. LEXIS 16987, at *5-6 (E.D. La. Sept. 26, 2003) (noting that the OPA “established a 

comprehensive Federal oil spill response and liability legislative framework”); National Shipping 

Co. of Saudi Arabia (NSCSA) v. Moran Mid-Atlantic Corp., 924 F. Supp. 1436 (E.D. Va. 1996) 

(“First, OPA clearly preempts maritime law as to recovery of cleanup expenses and the cost of 

compensating injured persons.”). The provisions of OPA are mandatory and exclusive. 

Gabarick, 623 F. Supp. 2d at 745. OPA provides the exclusive federal remedy for recovery of 

oil spill-related damages, displacing non-OPA-based claims for recovery of those damages. Id; 

23 U.S.C. § 27813. Plaintiffs claims are cognizable only under OPA and they cannot avoid OPA 

by artful pleading. Exclusive original jurisdiction of claims within the reach of OPA lies within 

the federal courts notwithstanding the citizenship of the parties or the amount in controversy. 33 

U.S.C. § 2717(b). 

3. The Complaint asserts damage claims for diminution in value of Plaintiff’s real 

estate due to an oil spill, damage claims addressed by OPA. (Complaint at ¶¶ 41-46.) The 

Complaint seeks recovery of damages caused by an “oil spill” resulting in “environmental and 

economic devastation.” (Complaint at ¶¶ 1, 3, 6, 7, 8, 41, 94, 99, 101, 103, 112, 113, 114, 118, 

119, 120, 121, 127-28, 134-35, 140-41). These damages fall squarely within the types of 

damages that Congress intended to be recoverable exclusively under OPA, and therefore 

Plaintiff’s claims arise under the Act. See 33 U.S.C. §§ 2702(b), 2717(b). Because the 

Complaint asserts claims and rights that arise under the laws of the United States, specifically the 

OPA, Transocean properly removes the State Court Action to this Court under its federal 

question jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1441(b).

Case 4:10-cv-00486-SPM -WCS Document 10 Filed 11/10/10 Page 3 of 9
4 

18480081v1 0917083 73724 

C. The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act 

4. In addition, or in the alternative, Transocean properly removes this case because 

this Court has original jurisdiction over the State Court Action pursuant to OCSLA. OCSLA 

provides that the district courts of the United States shall have “original jurisdiction of cases and 

controversies arising out of, or in connection with . . . any operation conducted on the outer 

Continental Shelf which involves the exploration, development, or production of minerals, of the 

subsoil and seabed of the outer Continental Shelf . . . .” 43 U.S.C. §1349(b)(1)(A). “But for” the 

operations conducted on the outer Continental Shelf, this case or controversy could not have 

arisen, i.e., oil from the BP well would not have allegedly entered into Florida and allegedly 

caused harm as Plaintiffs claim. This Court therefore has original subject matter jurisdiction 

conferred by 43 U.S.C. § 1349(b)(1)(A).

5. In the further alternative, this Court also has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 

U.S.C. § 1331, in that the claims asserted by Plaintiffs arise under a federal statute, namely, the 

Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, 43 U.S.C. § 1331, et seq.

6. OCSLA provides federal question jurisdiction for any case or controversy arising 

out of or in connection with oil and mineral operations conducted on the outer Continental Shelf, 

including the exploration, development, or production of minerals. Texaco Exploration & Prod., 

Inc. v. AmClyde Engineered Prods. Co., 448 F.3d 760, 768-70 (5th Cir. 2006) (stating that 

§1349(b)(1)s grant of jurisdiction is “broad” and that it “covers a wide range of activity”). 

OCSLA’s broad jurisdictional coverage from the statutory definitions of § 1349(b)(1)’s terms 

“exploration, development or production,”1

 which define the scope of § 1349(b)(1)’s term 

 

1

 OCSLA defines “exploration” as the “process of searching for minerals, including . . . any drilling . . . including 

the drilling of a well in which a discovery of oil or natural gas in paying quantities is made[.]” 43 U.S.C. § 1331(k). 

OCSLA defines “minerals” as including “oil, gas, sulphur, geopressured-geothermal and associated resources.” 43 

Case 4:10-cv-00486-SPM -WCS Document 10 Filed 11/10/10 Page 4 of 9
5 

18480081v1 0917083 73724 

“operations.” EP Operating Ltd. P’ship v. Placid Oil Co., 26 F.3d 563, 568-69 (5th Cir. 1994); 

Recar v. CNG Producing Co., 853 F.2d 367, 369 (5th Cir. 1988).

7. In 1978, Congress broadened OCSLA’s coverage to accommodate expanding 

offshore technology and to make “clear that Federal law is to be applicable to all activities on all 

devices in contact with the seabed for exploration, development, and production.” H.R. REP. 

95-590, at 128 (1977), reprinted in 1978 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1450, 1534.

8. For OCSLA to apply to an action, the plaintiff need not specifically assert any 

claims under OCSLA in the complaint. See Tennessee Gas Pipeline v. Houston Cas. Ins. Co., 87 

F.3d 150, 154-55 (5th Cir. 1996). Rather, OCSLA governs if the complaint satisfies its statutory 

requirements. 

9. Plaintiff’s allegations arise out of or are in connection with oil and mineral 

operations conducted on the outer Continental Shelf, including the exploration, development, or 

production of minerals. See 43 U.S.C. § 1349(b)(1)(A); Texaco Exploration & Prod., 448 F.3d 

at 768-70. The Complaint concedes that the Macondo Prospect oil well was located on the outer 

Continental Shelf, and alleges that Transocean owed Plaintiffs a duty of care with respect to 

drilling operations conducted on the outer Continental Shelf, that Transocean breached that duty 

by, among other things, violating federal regulations enacted under the authority granted by 

OCSLA pertaining to cementing offshore wells, and that Plaintiffs suffered damages as a result 

of the alleged breaches and oil spill. (Complaint at ¶¶ 15, 40). Moreover, the claims made 

herein allegedly arise from an accident involving an installation or device that was temporarily 

attached to the seabed floor of the outer Continental Shelf for the purpose of exploring for, 

developing, or producing resources therefrom, accordingly exclusive jurisdiction exists pursuant 

 U.S.C. § 1331(q). OCSLA defines “development” as “those activities which take place following discovery of 

minerals in paying quantities, including . . . drilling[.]” 43 U.S.C. § 1331(1). 

Case 4:10-cv-00486-SPM -WCS Document 10 Filed 11/10/10 Page 5 of 9
6 

18480081v1 0917083 73724 

to 43 U.S.C. § 1333(a). Because the Complaint asserts claims and rights arising under the laws 

of the United States, this case is removable under OCSLA. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1441(b).

 WHEREFORE, Defendant, Transocean, hereby states the foregoing additional grounds 

for its removal of the above-captioned action from the Circuit Court of the Second Judicial 

Circuit in and for Leon County, Florida to the United States District Court for the Northern 

District of Florida. 

 

By: s/Kenneth R. Hart 

 Kenneth R. Hart 

 Florida Bar No. 192580 

 khart@ausley.com

 Ausley & McMullen, P.A. 

 123 South Calhoun Street 

 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 

 Telephone: (850) 224-9115 

 Facsimile: (850) 222-7560 

 Arthur J. Laplante 

 Florida Bar No. 38401 

 alaplante@hinshawlaw.com

 Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP 

 One East Broward Blvd., Suite 1010 

 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 

 Telephone: 954-467-7900 

 Facsimile: 954-467-1024 

 Damian M. Fletcher 

 Florida Bar No. 0056499 

 dmfletcher@hinshawlaw.com

 Hinshaw & Culbertson 

 One East Broward Blvd., Suite 1010 

 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 

 Telephone: 954-467-7900 

 Facsimile: 954-467-1024 

Case 4:10-cv-00486-SPM -WCS Document 10 Filed 11/10/10 Page 6 of 9
7 

18480081v1 0917083 73724 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned hereby certifies that on this 10th day of November, 2010, I electronically 

transmitted a PDF version of this document to the Clerk of Court, using the CM/ECF System, for 

filing and for transmittal of a Notice of Electronic Filing to all CM/ECF registrants. 

 By: s/Kenneth R. Hart 

 Kenneth R. Hart 

 Florida Bar No. 192580 

 khart@ausley.com

 Ausley & McMullen, P.A. 

 123 South Calhoun Street 

 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 

 Telephone: (850) 224-9115 

 Facsimile: (850) 222-7560 

 Arthur J. Laplante 

 Florida Bar No. 38401 

 alaplante@hinshawlaw.com

 Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP 

 One East Broward Blvd., Suite 1010 

 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 

 Telephone: 954-467-7900 

 Facsimile: 954-467-1024 

 Damian M. Fletcher 

 Florida Bar No. 0056499 

 dmfletcher@hinshawlaw.com

 Hinshaw & Culbertson 

 One East Broward Blvd., Suite 1010 

 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 

 Telephone: 954-467-7900 

 Facsimile: 954-467-1024 

Case 4:10-cv-00486-SPM -WCS Document 10 Filed 11/10/10 Page 7 of 9
8 

18480081v1 0917083 73724 

SERVICE LIST 

SCOTT CARSWELL, ET AL. 

V 

LISA ECHEVERRI, ET AL. 

CASE NO.: 4:10-cv-00486-SPM-WCS 

Douglas S. Lyons, Esq. 

Marsha L. Lyons, Esq. 

Lyons & Farrar, P.A. 

325 North Calhoun Street 

Tallahassee, Florida 32301 

Tele: (850) 222-8811 

Fax: (850) 222-5583 

Attorneys for Plaintiff

William C. Owen, Esq. 

William C. Owen, LLC 

241 Pinewood Drive 

Tallahassee, Florida 32303 

Tele: (850) 513-0600 

Fax: (850) 877-2809 

Attorneys for Plaintiff

P. Tim Howard, Esq. 

Howard & Associates, P .A. 

1471 Timberlane Road Suite 115 

Tallahassee, Florida 32312 

Tele: (850) 298-4455 

Fax: (850) 216-2537 

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Samuel T. Adams, Esq. 

The Law Office of Samuel T. Adams 

PO Box 191 

Panama City, Florida 32402-0191 

Tele: (850) 785-3469 

Fax: (850) 769-6652 fax 

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Robert Hilliard, Esq. 

Hilliard, Munoz, Gonzalez, LLP 

719 S. Shoreline Boulevard, #500 

Corpus Christi, Texas 78401 

Tele: (361) 882-1612 

Fax: (361) 882-3015 

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Kenneth Smith, Esq. 

Sheller, P.C. 

1528 Walnut Street, 3rd Floor 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19102 

Tele: (215) 790-7300 

Fax: (215) 546-0942 fax 

Attorneys for Plaintiff

James Whatley, Esq. 

Whatley, Drake and Kallas 

1000 Park Place Tower 

2001 Park Place North 

Birmingham, Alabama 35203 

Tele: (205) 328-9576 

Fax: (205) 328-9669 

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Lawrence L. Jones, II, Esq. 

Jasper D. Ward, Esq. 

Bahe Cook Cantley & Jones, PLC 

Kentucky Home Life Building, Suite 700 

239 South Fifth Street 

Louisville, Kentucky 40202 

Tele: (502) 587-2002 

Fax: (502) 587-2006 

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Case 4:10-cv-00486-SPM -WCS Document 10 Filed 11/10/10 Page 8 of 9
9 

18480081v1 0917083 73724 

Daniel E. Becnel, Jr., Esq. 

Becnel Law Firm, LLC 

PO Drawer H 

Reserve, Louisiana 70084 

Tele: (985) 536-1186 

Fax: (985) 536-6445 

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Case 4:10-cv-00486-SPM -WCS Document 10 Filed 11/10/10 Page 9 of 9