ILNews

Civil penalty claim against BP to move forward

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A U.S. District judge in Hammond has dismissed two counts against gas company BP Products North America, finding he has jurisdiction to hear the claims but deciding not to do so because of similar action ongoing elsewhere.

But U.S. Judge Philip P. Simon is keeping one count against BP alive, holding that he will decide a claim about the gas company starting construction on its Whiting oil refinery before it had obtained a proper state permit.

The 32-page order issued June 26 comes in the nearly one-year-old case of Natural Resources Defense Council v. BP Products North America, No. 2:08-cv-00204. The citizen environmental group alleges that BP violated the Clean Air Act by allowing too much pollution under the permitting it had received, as well as a claim of not getting the proper permit to modernize its Whiting plant. Part of the suit's request is to have BP fined up to $32,500 per day for construction days and for not having the proper permit.

BP filed a motion to dismiss in January, but Judge Simon decided to hear arguments in April before making a decision. After two months of analyzing the decision, the judge granted in part and denied in part the motion.

The court dismissed Counts I and III, which involve claims that BP had deceived state officials about how much pollution it would emit and, as a result, didn't obtain the proper permits that are needed when triggering federal pollution control requirements. Judge Simon found those claims are identical to the ones filed within the Indiana Department of Environmental Management's Office of Environmental Adjudication (OEA), the agency handling those types of environmental appeals that can then be taken to state court, if necessary.

In its arguments, BP said the federal court doesn't have jurisdiction over these claims because of those similar ones raised within the OEA. In his ruling, the judge analyzed two specific U.S. Supreme Court precedents on whether to use his jurisdiction or not - Burford v. Sun Oil Co., 319 U.S. 315 (1943), and Colorado River Water Conservancy Dist. v. U.S., 424 U.S. 800 (1976). Both provide frameworks for how courts should make abstention decisions, but they differ on how to do so; Burford involves special forums for regulation and adjudication, while Colorado River involves an inquiry about whether other litigation or actions can be considered "parallel."

"While I am satisfied that the Court has jurisdiction, I nevertheless think this case really presents a call to be made by the expert environmental agencies that Indiana has selected for the job," Judge Simon wrote, finding that both abstention precedents apply but that Colorado River is more applicable here.

"In sum, the NRDC's suit and the OEA action are parallel proceedings, and my evaluation of the relevant factors leads me to the strong belief that extraordinary circumstances exist here," he wrote. "Despite the starting balance being 'heavily weighed in favor of the exercise of jurisdiction,' I believe abstention under the Colorado River doctrine is appropriate."

But the judge kept the second count in his court's control, deciding that the statute specifically allows for suits seeking "appropriate civil penalties" and that doesn't conflict with the pending OEA action.

A pre-trial conference is set for Aug. 20 before Magistrate Judge Paul Cherry, according to the federal docket online.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT