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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT