This case involves offshore drilling companies challenging federal regulations that require Development Operations Coordination Documents (DOCDs) and drilling permits for development and production activities in the western Gulf of Mexico outside areas adjacent to Florida, following the 2010 BP oil spill. The plaintiffs contended that these requirements exceeded the agency's authority under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), as similar plans and permits were statutorily limited to the Florida Gulf or exploration activities. The court denied the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and granted the government's motion in part and denied it in part on Counts V and VI. The core reasoning applied the Chevron test and APA standards to conclude that the long-standing regulations were within the Department of the Interior's broad statutory authority, as DOCDs differ substantively and procedurally from DPPs and permit requirements are authorized for development drilling.
This case is a federal civil rights action brought by subtenants of a Bourbon Street property in New Orleans against their lessors and related entities, alleging a conspiracy with state actors to evict them after they installed a mechanical bull as part of their entertainment operations, which violated the terms of their sublease and prompted a state-court eviction ruling requiring its removal. The defendants moved to dismiss the federal suit or, alternatively, to have the court abstain or stay proceedings. The district court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, holding that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine deprived the court of jurisdiction over claims seeking to overturn the state-court judgment and that Colorado River abstention factors supported staying or dismissing certain parallel claims arising from the same facts.
This case involves Ensco Offshore Co. challenging delays by the Department of the Interior and BOEMRE in processing five specific deepwater drilling permit applications in the Gulf of Mexico following the Deepwater Horizon oil spill and subsequent moratoriums. The plaintiff sought a preliminary injunction to compel agency action on permits that had been pending for four to nine months, far exceeding the pre-spill average of two weeks. The court granted the injunction, ordering BOEMRE to act on the applications within thirty days, after finding that the plaintiff demonstrated a likelihood of success on claims of unreasonable agency delay under applicable standards, irreparable harm from stalled operations and lost contracts, and that the balance of equities and public interest favored relief to restore regulatory normalcy.
This case involves a breach of contract dispute between Gulf Coast Facilities Management, L.L.C. and BG LNG Services, L.L.C. over an oral agreement for property management services at a port facility in Louisiana, including negotiating subleases and collecting rent in exchange for a 10 percent commission. Gulf Coast claimed it was entitled to ongoing commissions even after BG terminated the relationship, while BG sought to avoid payment. The court granted BG's motion for summary judgment and denied Gulf Coast's partial summary judgment motion. The core reasoning was that Gulf Coast and its principals lacked the required Louisiana real estate broker license to perform the services at issue, rendering the agreement an absolute nullity under state law that could not be enforced.
This case concerns a challenge by offshore oil and gas service companies to a six-month moratorium on deepwater drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, imposed by the Secretary of the Interior following the Deepwater Horizon explosion. The plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction, arguing that the moratorium was issued contrary to law under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act and related regulations. The court granted the motion, finding that the Secretary's memorandum and supporting report failed to adequately explain or justify the blanket suspension of operations, including by misrepresenting expert consensus on the need for a broad moratorium and not addressing required factors such as irreparable harm or implementation timelines under 30 C.F.R. 250.172. The decision turned on the administrative record showing that the moratorium exceeded the scope supported by the evidence and expert input reviewed.
In United States v. Ginn, Darrell Ginn pleaded guilty to drug distribution charges, leading to a preliminary forfeiture order for a Cadillac Escalade and $1,035 in cash. Ashley Cummings and Marsha Ginn filed third-party petitions under 21 U.S.C. § 853(n) asserting ownership interests in the property, but neither petition was signed under penalty of perjury nor provided details on the time or circumstances of acquisition. The government moved to dismiss the petitions for failing to meet statutory requirements and for insufficiently stating a claim. The court granted the motions, holding that the petitions lacked standing and failed to state a claim because they did not comply with the signing requirement or provide adequate factual support for the asserted interests.
