Opinion ID: 2799728
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Deepwater Horizon III

Text: The third appeal arose from our remand in Deepwater Horizon I. In re Deepwater Horizon (Deepwater Horizon III), 744 F.3d 370, 373–74 (5th Cir. 2014), cert. denied 135 S. Ct. 754 (2014). On remand, “the district court held that the Settlement Agreement requires matching of revenues and expenses,” as BP had originally argued. Id. However, the district court rejected BP’s newly briefed argument—that the Claims Administrator’s refusal to require specific evidence of causation violated Article III and Rule 23. Id. at 374. Whereas Deepwater Horizon II addressed the certification of the class, Deepwater Horizon III “decide[d] . . . whether the implementation of the Settlement Agreement is defective.” Id. at 375. In spite of the decision in Deepwater Horizon II, BP again argued that any interpretation or implementation of the Agreement that does not require proof of causation “reanimates” the Article III and Rule 23 issues decided in that case. Id. at 376. BP sought reversal of the district court’s ruling and an injunction preventing payment of claims to entities without evidence of causation. Id. at 373. We affirmed the district 6 Case: 13-31296 Document: 00513036479 Page: 7 Date Filed: 05/08/2015 No. 13-31296 c/w Nos. 13-31299, 13-31302 court’s order, denied the injunction, and held that we were bound by our Deepwater Horizon II rulings on Rule 23 and Article III. See id. at 375–78.