Source: http://la.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20191002_0001342.ELA.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2020-06-04 00:26:58
Document Index: 614293136

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1002', '§ 2702', '§ 2702', '§ 2701', '§ 1012', '§ 1012', '§ 2712', '§ 1015', '§ 2715']

FindACase™ | United States v. E.R.R. LLC
United States v. E.R.R. LLC
E.R.R. LLC, ET AL.
Before the Court is the United States' Motion to Strike Defendants' Demand for Trial by Jury. R. Doc. 13. Defendants oppose the motion. R. Doc. 14. The United States filed a reply to Defendants' opposition. R. Doc. 18. Because the United States raised a new argument in its reply, R. Doc. 18, Defendants filed a sur-reply, R. Doc. 22. Having considered the parties' briefs and applicable law, the Court now rules as follows.
This case arises out of an alleged May 2015 oil spill on the Mississippi River. R. Doc. 1 at ¶ 1. Plaintiff United States filed suit against Defendants E.R.R. LLC, Evergreen Resource Recovery LLC, and Hugh Nungesser, Jr., seeking the recovery of cleanup and removal costs of $632, 262.49 under the Oil Pollution Act (“OPA”). R. Doc. 1. The United States contends the oil spill originated from a wastewater storage and treatment facility in Belle Chasse, Louisiana owned by Defendants. R. Doc. 1 at ¶ 29.
The United States alleges Defendants did not report oil discharge in the Mississippi River as required under the Clean Water Act. R. Doc. 1 at ¶ 27. Further, the United States alleges once the Coast Guard was made aware of the oil, “hours later, ” the Coast Guard found approximately one mile of oil contamination in the river and along the shoreline. R. Doc. 1 at ¶ 28. The United States contends the “Coast Guard investigated potential sources of the oil spill and determined that the spill originated at Defendants' Facility.” R. Doc. 1 at ¶ 29.
The United States allege Defendants then engaged Oil Mop, LLC-a Coast Guard-certified Oil Spill Removal Organization (“ORSO”)-to conduct removal operations pursuant to a prior contractual agreement, with cleanup operations beginning on May 13, 2015. R. Doc. 1 at ¶ 30. Following completion of the cleanup operations, the United States alleges “Oil Mop submitted its bill to Defendants on July 22, 2015 . . . [and] Defendants did not pay the bill.” R. Doc. 1 at ¶ 33. The United States avers that, as a result of Defendants' refusal to make payment, Oil Mop's claim was presented to and adjudicated by the National Pollution Funds Center (“NPFC” or “the Fund”). R. Doc. 1 at ¶¶ 34-35. The United States further alleges the NPFC accepted the claim and paid Oil Mop $631, 228.74. R. Doc. 1 at ¶ 35. Moreover, pursuant to the terms of the alleged agreement, “Oil Mop assigned, transferred, and subrogated all, [sic] rights, claims, interests and rights of action to the United States.” R. Doc. 1 at ¶ 35.
The United States thus seeks repayment from Defendants under § 1002(a) of the OPA, which provides:
[E]ach responsible party for . . . a facility from which oil is discharged, or which poses the substantial threat of a discharge of oil, into or upon the navigable waters or adjoining shorelines . . . is liable for the removal costs and damages specified in subsection (b) of [33 U.S.C. § 2702(b)] that result from such incident.”
R. Doc. 1 at ¶ 9 (citing 33 U.S.C. § 2702(b)). The OPA defines “removal costs” as “the costs of removal that are incurred after a discharge of oil has occurred or, in any case in which there is a substantial threat of discharge of oil, the costs to prevent, minimize, or mitigate oil pollution from such an incident.” 33 U.S.C. § 2701(30).
Alternatively, the United States seeks repayment pursuant to its subrogation rights under OPA §§ 1012 and 1015. R. Doc. 1 at 1. After the NPFC has paid a claim, § 1012(f) of the OPA states the U.S. government “acquir[es] by subrogation all rights of the claimant . . . to recover from the responsible party.” See 33 U.S.C. § 2712(f). Moreover, pursuant to § 1015(c) of the OPA, the United States is entitled to bring an action seeking “any compensation paid by the Fund to any claimant pursuant to this Act, and all costs incurred by the Fund by reason of the claim, including interest (including prejudgment interest), administrative and adjudicative costs, and attorney's fees.” 33 U.S.C. § 2715(c). Accordingly, in addition to a judgment against Defendants for removal costs of $632, 262.49, the government seeks all additional costs incurred by the Fund, including interest, administrative and adjudicative costs, attorney's fees, and any other appropriate relief. R. Doc. 1 at ¶ 2.
Defendants deny all liability, deny its designation as a “responsible party” under the OPA, and deny the government's bringing suit under the OPA, alleging the government failed to comply with the statute's notice requirement. R. Doc. 8. Further, Defendants contend the Coast Guard failed to properly investigate other potential sources of the oil and did not properly identify the source or pathway from Defendants' facility to the oil spill. R. Doc. 8 at 12. In their Answer, Defendants also “pray for trial by jury on all issues so triable.” R. Doc. 8 at 12.
Before the Court is the United States' Motion to Strike Defendants' Demand for Trial by Jury. R. Doc. 13. In support of its motion, the United States asserts two reasons Defendants' are not entitled to a jury trial in the instant removal cost recovery claim under the OPA: “(1) Congress did not provide a right to a jury trial in OPA cases, and (2) the Seventh Amendment does not provide a right to a jury trial here because an OPA cost recovery action seeks equitable, not legal, relief.” R. Doc. 13-1 at 2. Additionally, the United States contends “ample case law ...