throbber
Case 3:21-cv-00126-JWD-EWD Document 1 02/26/21 Page 1 of 16
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
`
`UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`METAIRIE ENERGY COMPANY, INC.,
`and
`
`BERNARD P. ROBICHAUX,
`
`Defendants.
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
` )
`
`Civil Action No.
`
`21-126
`
`Judge
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`The United States of America, acting at the request of the United States Coast Guard,
`
`files this Complaint and alleges the following:
`
`NATURE OF THIS ACTION
`
`1.
`
`The United States seeks repayment by defendants Metairie Energy Company, Inc.
`
`(“Metairie”) and Bernard P. Robichaux (collectively, “Defendants”), as jointly and severally
`
`liable “responsible parties” under Section 1002(a) of the Oil Pollution Act (“OPA”), 33 U.S.C.
`
`§ 2702(a), for over $1.3 million in costs paid by the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund (the “Fund”)
`
`for a removal action following an August 2016 oil spill (the “Incident”) from Defendants’ oil
`
`facility located in the Choctaw Bayou Oil and Gas Field along the Port Allen Lock in Iberville
`
`Parish, Louisiana (the “Facility”). In addition, in the alternative, the United States seeks
`
`repayment from Defendants pursuant to its subrogation rights under OPA Sections 1012 and
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-00126-JWD-EWD Document 1 02/26/21 Page 2 of 16
`
`
`
`1015, 33 U.S.C. §§ 2712 and 2715, of these same removal costs paid by the Fund to Oil Spill
`
`Removal Organizations (“OSROs”) and their subcontractors – Oil Mop, LLC (“Oil Mop”);
`
`Enhanced Environmental & Emergency Services (“EE&E Services”); A&M Associates, Inc.
`
`(“A&M Associates”); Workbox, LLC (“Workbox”); TREO Staffing, LLC (“TREO”); and
`
`Tanner Services, LLC (“Tanner”) (collectively, the “Claimants”) – for their uncompensated oil-
`
`spill removal costs incurred under a contractual agreement with Defendants relating to the
`
`Incident.
`
`2.
`
`The United States seeks a judgment against Defendants, jointly and severally, for
`
`$1,376,234.29, and all costs incurred by the Fund by reason of this claim, including interest
`
`(including prejudgment interest), administrative and adjudicative costs, and attorney’s fees, and
`
`any other relief that may be appropriate.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`3.
`
`This court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action and over the
`
`parties pursuant to Section 1017(b) of OPA, 33 U.S.C. § 2717(b), and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and
`
`1345.
`
`4.
`
`Authority to bring this action is vested in the United States Department of Justice
`
`by 28 U.S.C. §§ 516 and 519.
`
`5.
`
`Venue is proper in this District pursuant to Section 1017(b) of OPA, 33 U.S.C.
`
`§ 2717(b), and 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), because it is the judicial district in which Defendants are
`
`located and in which the discharge and the resulting removal action occurred.
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-00126-JWD-EWD Document 1 02/26/21 Page 3 of 16
`
`DEFENDANTS
`
`
`
`6.
`
`Defendant Metairie Energy Company, Inc. is organized under the laws of the
`
`State of Louisiana with its principal place of business in the City of Mandeville, Parish of St.
`
`Tammany, Louisiana. Metairie is the owner and operator of the oil facility located in the
`
`Choctaw Bayou Oil and Gas Field located at 60825 Highway 1148, Plaquemine, Iberville Parish,
`
`Louisiana. It is listed as “Not in Good Standing” on the Secretary of State’s registry.
`
`7.
`
`Defendant Bernard P. Robichaux is the President of Metairie. Mr. Robichaux is
`
`and was an operator of the Facility at the time of the Incident. He directs the Facility’s
`
`operations, including oil handling and discharge activities.
`
`STATUTORY AND REGULATORY BACKGROUND
`
`8.
`
`OPA Section 1002(a), 33 U.S.C. § 2702(a), provides that “each 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 this section [33 U.S.C. § 2702(b)] that
`
`result from such incident.”
`
`9.
`
`OPA Section 1001(7), 33 U.S.C. § 2701(7), defines “discharge” to mean “any
`
`emission (other than natural seepage), intentional or unintentional” and to include “spilling,
`
`leaking, pumping, pouring, emitting, emptying, or dumping[.]”
`
`10.
`
`OPA Section 1001(9), 33 U.S.C. § 2701(9), defines “facility” to mean “any
`
`structure, group of structures, equipment, or device (other than a vessel) which is used for one or
`
`more of the following purposes: . . . storing, handling, processing [or] transferring . . . oil.”
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-00126-JWD-EWD Document 1 02/26/21 Page 4 of 16
`
`
`
`11.
`
`OPA Section 1001(14), 33 U.S.C. § 2701(14), defines “incident” to mean “any
`
`occurrence or series of occurrences having the same origin, involving one or more . . . facilities
`
`. . . resulting in the discharge or substantial threat of discharge of oil[.]”
`
`12.
`
`OPA Section 1001(21), 33 U.S.C. § 2701(21), defines “navigable waters” as “the
`
`waters of the United States, including the territorial sea[.]”
`
`13.
`
`OPA Section 1001(23), 33 U.S.C. § 1701(23), defines “oil” to mean “oil of any
`
`kind or in any form, including petroleum, fuel oil, sludge, oil refuse, and oil mixed with wastes
`
`other than dredged spoil[.]”
`
`14.
`
`OPA Section 1001(24), 33 U.S.C. § 2701(24), defines “onshore facility” to mean
`
`“any facility (including, but not limited to, motor vehicles and rolling stock) of any kind located
`
`in, on or under any land within the United States other than submerged land.”
`
`15.
`
`OPA Section 1001(27), 33 U.S.C. § 2701(27), defines “person” to mean an
`
`“individual, corporation, partnership, [or] association[.]”
`
`16.
`
`OPA Section 1001(30), 33 U.S.C. § 2701(30), defines “remove” and “removal” to
`
`mean “containment and removal of oil or a hazardous substance from water and shorelines or the
`
`taking of other actions as may be necessary to minimize or mitigate damage to the public health
`
`or welfare, including, but not limited to, fish, shellfish, wildlife, and public and private property,
`
`shorelines, and beaches[.]”
`
`17.
`
`OPA Section 1001(31), 33 U.S.C. § 2701(31), defines “removal costs” to mean
`
`“the costs of removal that are incurred after a discharge of oil has occurred or, in any case in
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-00126-JWD-EWD Document 1 02/26/21 Page 5 of 16
`
`
`
`which there is a substantial threat of a discharge of oil, the costs to prevent, minimize, or mitigate
`
`oil pollution from such an incident[.]”
`
`18.
`
`OPA Section 1001(32)(E), 33 U.S.C. § 2701(32), defines “responsible party” to
`
`include, “[i]n the case of an onshore facility (other than a pipeline), any person owning or
`
`operating the facility.”
`
`19.
`
`OPA Section 1001(26)(A)(ii), 33 U.S.C. § 2701(26)(A)(ii), defines “owner or
`
`operator” to mean, “in the case of an onshore or offshore facility, any person owning or
`
`operating such facility.”
`
`20.
`
`OPA Section 1002(b), 33 U.S.C. § 2702(b), provides that the “removal costs”
`
`referred to in Section 1002(a) of OPA, 33 U.S.C. § 2702(a), include “(A) all removal costs
`
`incurred by the United States . . . under subsection (c), (d), (e), or (l) of Section 1321 of this title
`
`[Section 311 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1321]. . .; and (B) any removal costs incurred
`
`by any person for acts taken by the person which are consistent with the National Contingency
`
`Plan [40 C.F.R. Part 300 (“NCP”)].”
`
`21.
`
`Pursuant to OPA Section 1012(a)(4), 33 U.S.C. § 2712(a)(4), the Fund is
`
`authorized to reimburse persons, including OSROs, for uncompensated removal costs
`
`determined to be consistent with the NCP. The Fund is administered by the Coast Guard’s
`
`National Pollution Funds Center (“NPFC”) and financed in part by recoveries from responsible
`
`parties.
`
`22.
`
`OPA Section 1013(e), 33 U.S.C. § 2713(e), authorizes the promulgation of
`
`regulations for the presentation, filing, processing, settlement and adjudication of OPA claims
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-00126-JWD-EWD Document 1 02/26/21 Page 6 of 16
`
`
`
`against the Fund. Pursuant to this authority, the Coast Guard has promulgated regulations
`
`establishing claims procedures, codified at 33 C.F.R. Part 136.
`
`23.
`
`OPA Section 1012(f), 33 U.S.C. § 2712(f), provides that “[p]ayment of any claim
`
`. . . by the Fund under this Act shall be subject to the United States Government acquiring by
`
`subrogation all rights of the claimant . . . to recover from the responsible party.”
`
`24.
`
`OPA Section 1015(a), 33 U.S.C. § 2715(a), provides further that “[a]ny person,
`
`including the Fund, who pays compensation pursuant to this Act to any claimant for removal
`
`costs . . . shall be subrogated to all rights, claims, and causes of action that the claimant has under
`
`any other law.”
`
`25.
`
`OPA Section 1015(c), 33 U.S.C. § 2715(c), provides that the United States, in an
`
`action brought under that Section, may seek “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.”
`
`GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
`
` The Incident
`
`The Facility is part of the Choctaw Bayou Oil and Gas field located at 60825
`
`A.
`
`26.
`
`Highway 1148, Plaquemine, Iberville Parish, Louisiana, 70756. The Facility is located in the
`
`wetlands of the Choctaw Bayou and along the Port Allen Lock. The Facility includes an oil well
`
`and a number of 400-barrel above ground storage tanks that contain crude oil or oily water
`
`emulsion.
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-00126-JWD-EWD Document 1 02/26/21 Page 7 of 16
`
`
`
`27.
`
`On August 29, 2016, the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources (“LDNR”)
`
`inspected the Facility and discovered that oil from one of the Facility’s above ground storage
`
`tanks (“Tank No. 2”) had discharged from the tank directly into the surrounding wetlands
`
`sometime earlier in August 2016.
`
`28.
`
`After the discovery of the Incident, Bernard P. Robichaux ordered workers at the
`
`Facility to clean the discharged oil by spraying commercial soaps on the affected wetlands.
`
`29.
`
`On January 31, 2017, the EPA assessed the Facility and found that the discharged
`
`oil had not been cleaned up. During the assessment, EPA found heavily contaminated vegetation
`
`and ponds across approximately 10 acres of wetlands, approximately 400 feet from the Port
`
`Allen Lock.
`
`30.
`
`The Port Allen Lock is a navigable-in-fact water that flows into Choctaw Bayou,
`
`the Intracoastal Waterway, the Mississippi River, and then the Gulf of Mexico.
`
`31.
`
`32.
`
`The impacted wetlands abut the Port Allen Lock.
`
`EPA issued a Notice of Federal Interest (“NOFI”) to Metairie on January 31,
`
`2017, and it directed Metairie to notify the National Response Center of the oil discharge and to
`
`hire an OSRO to properly remove the oil and resulting contamination.
`
`33.
`
`EPA mobilized the Coast Guard’s Gulf Strike Team to assist with the removal
`
`action.
`
`34. Metairie hired A&M Associates to act as its spill management team and
`
`coordinate removal activities.
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-00126-JWD-EWD Document 1 02/26/21 Page 8 of 16
`
`
`
`35.
`
`A&M Associates prepared a work plan for the removal action and subcontracted
`
`with Oil Mop, EE&E Services, and Workbox. Oil Mop subcontracted with TREO and Tanner to
`
`obtain additional personnel to conduct removal activities.
`
`36.
`
`Due to the wide impact of the oil discharge, the impacted area was divided into
`
`zones and boom was placed to prevent further migration of the oil into the Port Allen Lock and
`
`surrounding wetlands.
`
`37.
`
` Defendants’ OSROs worked to remove oiled vegetation, move affected wildlife
`
`to areas unaffected by the oil spill, and remove the oil and contaminated soil using boom, sorbent
`
`pads, and vacuum trucks.
`
`38.
`
`A&M Associates facilitated the collection of samples from the impacted soils and
`
`sediments as well as samples of the remaining contents of Tank No. 2. The laboratory analytical
`
`results show that the substance discharged from Tank No. 2 was oil as defined by OPA.
`
`39.
`
`On April 13, 2018, the removal was completed and EPA issued the Final
`
`Removal Pollution Report.
`
`B.
`
`40.
`
`The Coast Guard’s Costs and Demands for Payment
`
`On February 14, 2017, Oil Mop submitted its bill to Defendants in the amount of
`
`$1,079,398.17. Defendants did not pay the bill.
`
`41.
`
`On or about May 18, 2017, Oil Mop presented its claim to the NPFC in the
`
`amount of $1,079,398.17.
`
`42.
`
`The NPFC adjudicated Oil Mop’s claim. The NPFC determined that $265.29 of
`
`Oil Mop’s claim was inconsistent with the NCP. The NPFC offered Oil Mop $1,079,132.88 for
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-00126-JWD-EWD Document 1 02/26/21 Page 9 of 16
`
`
`
`its uncompensated removal costs. Oil Mop accepted the offer, and payment was issued on March
`
`7, 2018. As part of the acceptance agreement, Oil Mop assigned, transferred, and subrogated all
`
`rights, claims, interests and rights of action to the United States.
`
`43.
`
`On February 13, 2017, EE&E Services submitted its bill to Defendants in the
`
`amount of $71,169.07. Defendants did not pay the bill.
`
`44.
`
`On or about June 20, 2017, EE&E Services presented its claim to the NPFC in the
`
`amount of $71,169.07.
`
`45.
`
`The NPFC adjudicated EE&E Services’ claim. The NPFC offered EE&E Services
`
`$71,169.07 for its uncompensated removal costs. EE&E Services accepted the offer and payment
`
`was issued on March 2, 2018. As part of the acceptance agreement, EE&E Services assigned,
`
`transferred, and subrogated all rights, claims, interests, and rights of action to the United States.
`
`46.
`
`On March 2, 2017, A&M Associates submitted its bill to Defendants on in the
`
`amount of $229,460.14. Defendants did not pay the bill.
`
`47.
`
`On or about November 9, 2017, A&M Associates presented its claim to the NPFC
`
`in the amount of $229,460.14.
`
`48.
`
`The NPFC adjudicated A&M Associates’ claim and determined that $102,570.83
`
`of A&M Associates’ costs were not consistent with the NCP or were unreasonable. The NPFC
`
`offered A&M Associates $126,889.31 for its uncompensated removal costs. A&M Associates
`
`accepted the offer and payment was issued on May 10, 2018. As part of the acceptance
`
`agreement, A&M Associates assigned, transferred, and subrogated all rights, claims, interests,
`
`and rights of action to the United States.
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-00126-JWD-EWD Document 1 02/26/21 Page 10 of 16
`
`
`
`49.
`
`The NPFC was notified that due to Defendants’ refusal to pay A&M Associates,
`
`A&M Associates could not pay its subcontractor, Workbox.
`
`50.
`
`On July 2, 2018, Workbox presented its claim to the NPFC for uncompensated
`
`removal costs related to the Incident in the amount of $2,154.45.
`
`51.
`
`The NPFC adjudicated Workbox’s claim. The NPFC offered Workbox $2,154.45
`
`for its uncompensated removal costs. Workbox accepted the offer and payment was issued on
`
`July 18, 2018. As part of the acceptance agreement, Workbox assigned, transferred, and
`
`subrogated all rights, claims, interests, and rights of action to the United States.
`
`52.
`
`On November 15, 2018, TREO presented its claim to the NPFC for
`
`uncompensated removal costs related to the Incident in the amount of $3,747.65.
`
`53.
`
`The NPFC adjudicated TREO’s claim and determined that $1,510.32 of TREO’s
`
`costs was inconsistent with the NCP or unreasonable. The NPFC offered TREO $2,237.33 for its
`
`uncompensated removal costs. TREO accepted the offer and payment was issued on February
`
`27, 2019. As part of the acceptance agreement, TREO Staffing, LLC assigned, transferred, and
`
`subrogated all rights, claims, interests, and rights of action to the United States.
`
`54.
`
`On December 10, 2018, Tanner presented its claim to the NPFC for
`
`uncompensated removal costs related to the Incident in the amount of $1,980.00.
`
`55.
`
`The NPFC adjudicated Tanner’s claim. The NPFC offered Tanner $1,980.00 for
`
`its uncompensated removal costs. Tanner accepted the offer and payment was issued on February
`
`19, 2019. As part of the acceptance agreement, Tanner assigned, transferred, and subrogated all
`
`rights, claims, interests, and rights of action to the United States.
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-00126-JWD-EWD Document 1 02/26/21 Page 11 of 16
`
`
`
`56.
`
`On February 18, 2019, Oil Mop submitted a second claim to the NPFC for
`
`uncompensated costs incurred by Oil Mop during the NPFC’s adjudication of Oil Mop’s initial
`
`claim.
`
`57.
`
`The NPFC adjudicated Oil Mop’s second claim and offered $12,932.10 for its
`
`uncompensated removal costs. Oil Mop accepted the offer and payment was issued on February
`
`19, 2019. As part of the acceptance agreement, Oil Mop assigned, transferred, and subrogated all
`
`rights, claims, interests, and rights of action to the United States.
`
`58.
`
`In responding to the Incident, the EPA incurred $67,193.63. Those costs were
`
`reimbursed by the Fund.
`
`59.
`
`In responding to the Incident, the United States Coast Guard incurred $5,318.27.
`
`Those costs were reimbursed by the Fund.
`
`60.
`
`The NPFC incurred $7,227.25 in costs to adjudicate the claims presented by
`
`Defendants’ OSROs and their subcontractors related to the Incident.
`
`61.
`
`The NPFC issued a Notice of Potential Liability (“NOPL”) to Metairie on June
`
`22, 2018, notifying Metairie of potential liability for oil removal costs. Defendants did not reply
`
`to the NOPL.
`
`62.
`
`NPFC issued a bill to Metairie on July 30, 2018, for the costs paid by the Fund to
`
`the OSROs and their subcontractors, the EPA, and the Coast Guard for their uncompensated
`
`removal costs associated with the Incident. Defendants did not pay.
`
`63.
`
`On August 23, 2018, the NPFC issued a second bill to Metairie for the costs paid
`
`by the Fund (including those costs paid since the July 20, 2018 bill) to the OSROs and their
`
`- 11 -
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-00126-JWD-EWD Document 1 02/26/21 Page 12 of 16
`
`
`
`subcontractors, the EPA, and the Coast Guard for their uncompensated removal costs associated
`
`with the Incident. Defendants did not pay.
`
`64.
`
`On April 10, 2019, the NPFC issued a third bill to Metairie for the costs paid by
`
`the Fund (including those costs paid since the August 23, 2018 bill) to the OSROs and their
`
`subcontractors, the EPA, and the Coast Guard for their uncompensated removal costs associated
`
`with the Incident. Defendants did not pay.
`
`65.
`
`On September 27, 2019, the NPFC issued a bill to Bernard Robichaux for
`
`removal costs associated with the Incident. Defendants did not pay.
`
`66.
`
`No one has reimbursed the Fund for any of the $1,376,234.29 in removal costs
`
`incurred by the United States.
`
`LEGAL CONTENTIONS SUPPORTING CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
`
`67.
`
`Defendants are each “persons” within the meaning of Section 1001(27) of OPA,
`
`33 U.S.C. § 2701(27).
`
`68.
`
`Tank No. 2, is an “onshore facility,” and was a “facility” at the time of the
`
`Incident, within the meaning of Section 1001(9) of OPA, 33 U.S.C. § 2701(9).
`
`69. Metairie is the owner and was the owner of the Tank No. 2 at the time of the
`
`Incident within the meaning of Section 1001(26)(A)(ii) of OPA, 33 U.S.C. § 2701(26)(A)(ii),
`
`and Section 1001(32)(B) of OPA, 33 U.S.C. § 2701(32)(B), and is a “responsible party” within
`
`the meaning of Sections 1002(a) and 1001(31) of OPA, 33 U.S.C. §§ 2702(a) and 2701(32).
`
`70.
`
`Defendants were at the time of the Incident “operators” of Tank No. 2 within the
`
`meaning of Section 1001(26)(A)(ii) of OPA, 33 U.S.C. § 2701(26)(A)(ii), and Section
`
`- 12 -
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-00126-JWD-EWD Document 1 02/26/21 Page 13 of 16
`
`
`
`1001(32)(B) of OPA, 33 U.S.C. § 2701(32)(B), and are “responsible parties” within the meaning
`
`of Sections 1002(a) and 1001(32) of OPA, 33 U.S.C. §§2702(a) and 2701(32).
`
`71.
`
`The discharge of oil from Tank No. 2 into the wetlands of the Port Allen Lock
`
`and Choctaw Bayou was a “discharge” or substantial threat of a discharge of “oil” into
`
`“navigable waters” and adjoining shorelines as those terms are defined in Section 1001(7) of
`
`OPA, 33 U.S.C. § 2701(7) (“discharge”), Section 1001(23) of OPA, 33 U.S.C. § 2701(23)
`
`(“oil”), and Section 1001(21) of OPA, 33 U.S.C. § 2701(21) (“navigable waters”).
`
`72.
`
`The actions described above were “removal” actions within the meaning of
`
`Section 1001(30) of OPA, 33 U.S.C. § 2701(30).
`
`73.
`
`The money paid or incurred by the Fund for the removal action conducted in
`
`response to releases of oil from Tank No. 2 into the wetlands of the Port Allen Lock and
`
`Choctaw Bayou were “removal costs” within the meaning of Section 1001(31) of OPA, 33
`
`U.S.C. § 2701(31), and Section 1002(b)(1) of OPA, 33 U.S.C. § 2702(b)(1).
`
`74.
`
`The monies paid by the Fund to reimburse Defendants’ OSROs and their
`
`subcontractors pursuant to OPA Section 1012(a)(4), 33 U.S.C. § 2712(a)(4), were for removal
`
`actions taken by the OSROs and their subcontractors that were consistent with the National
`
`Contingency Plan, 40 C.F.R. Part 300 et seq. The amounts incurred to adjudicate those claims
`
`are recoverable costs under OPA Section 1015(c), 33 U.S.C. § 2715(c).
`
`75.
`
`As a result of the actions described above, the Fund has incurred at least
`
`$1,376,234.29 in unreimbursed removal costs for the Incident.
`
`- 13 -
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-00126-JWD-EWD Document 1 02/26/21 Page 14 of 16
`
`
`
`FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`LIABILITY FOR REMOVAL COSTS
`UNDER OPA SECTION 1002(a)
`
`
`
`76.
`
`As owners and/or operators of the Facility from which oil was discharged into
`
`navigable waters and adjoining shorelines, Defendants are liable, jointly and severally, to the
`
`United States under Section 1002(a) of OPA, 33 U.S.C. § 2702(a), for $1,376,234.29 in removal
`
`costs paid or incurred by the Fund as a result of the discharge of oil from the Facility into the
`
`wetlands of the Port Allen Lock and Choctaw Bayou in connection with the Incident. Defendants
`
`are also liable to the United States under Section 1015(c) of OPA, 33 U.S.C. §§ 2715(c), for all
`
`costs incurred by the Fund by reason of the claims, including interest (including prejudgment
`
`interest), administrative and adjudicative costs, and attorney’s fees.
`
`SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`LIABILITY FOR REMOVAL COSTS
`UNDER OPA SECTIONS 1012 AND 1015
`
`In the alternative, as applied to the OSROs and their subcontractors’ claims, in
`
`77.
`
`accordance with OPA Sections 1012(f) and 1015, 33 U.S.C. §§ 2712(f) and 2715, and pursuant
`
`to the terms of the OSROs’ and their subcontractors’ acceptance of payment of their claims
`
`under OPA Section 1012(a)(4), 33 U.S.C. § 2712(a)(4), Defendants are liable to the United
`
`States for $1,296,495.14 in compensation paid by the Fund to Defendants’ OSROs and their
`
`subcontractors pursuant to OPA and all costs incurred by the Fund by reason of those claims,
`
`including interest (including prejudgment interest), adjudicative and administrative costs, and
`
`attorney’s fees.
`
`
`
`- 14 -
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-00126-JWD-EWD Document 1 02/26/21 Page 15 of 16
`
`
`
`
`
`REQUEST FOR RELIEF
`
`WHEREFORE, The United States respectfully requests that this Court:
`
`(1)
`
`Enter a judgment of joint and several liability against Defendants and in favor of
`
`the United States, in the amount of $1,376,234.29, plus all costs incurred by the Fund by reason
`
`of this claim, including interest (including prejudgment interest), adjudicative and administrative
`
`costs, and attorney’s fees; and
`
`(2)
`
`Grant such other relief as may be appropriate.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
`
`JEAN E. WILLIAMS
`Acting Assistant Attorney General
`Environment and Natural Resources Division
`United States Department of Justice
`Washington, D.C.
`
`
`
`/s/Asia A. McNeil-Womack
`ASIA MCNEIL-WOMACK, Ga. Bar No. 821002
`Trial Attorney
`Environmental Enforcement Section
`U.S. Department of Justice
`P.O. Box 7611 Ben Franklin Station
`Washington, D.C. 20044
`Telephone: (202) 305-0544
`Asia.McNeil-Womack@usdoj.gov
`
`- 15 -
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-00126-JWD-EWD Document 1 02/26/21 Page 16 of 16
`
`
`
`
`BRANDON J. FREMIN
`UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
`
`/s/ Chase E. Zachary
`Chase E. Zachary, LBN 37366
`Assistant United States Attorney
`777 Florida Street, Suite 208
`Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70801
`Telephone: (225) 389-0443
`Fax: (225) 389-0685
`E-mail: chase.zachary@usdoj.gov
`
`
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`PATRICIA KINGCADE
`Attorney Advisor
`National Pollution Funds Center, US Coast Guard
`2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue SE
`Washington, DC 20593
`
`- 16 -
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket