Tuesday, Jan. 25
January 25, 2011Thursday, Jan. 27
January 27, 2011Sixteen states from across the country have joined Louisiana in its request for a separate government case track in a Multi-District Litigation pending in federal court.
Louisiana Attorney General James D. “Buddy” Caldwell confirmed earlier this month that an amicus brief had been filed by the states of Arkansas, Alaska, Colorado, Delaware, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, New Mexico, Texas, Utah, Vermont and Washington in U.S. District Court of Eastern Louisiana in New Orleans.
The brief is an objection to the case management structure established by the court for proceedings related to MLD 2179, and a federal judicial panel’s role of transferring and consolidating litigation authority following the BP Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill on April 20, 2010 away from the state and to independent lawyers and federal decision makers.
The state of Louisiana had previously made a motion to create a separate government case track to deal with the Deepwater Horizon case. The state’s argument was that such a move would afford the state’s ability to fulfill its constitutional responsibility to protect public interests in federal court without surrendering its authority.
According to the amicus brief, it is an issue of state’s rights and sovereignty.
“[The] current case management structure directly interferes with the role of the offices of the attorneys general or private counsel of their choosing,” the brief reads.
As a general practice of law, states attorneys general are charged with the obligations and powers associated with representing their respective states in litigation.
“It is entirely contrary to the public interest for attorneys general or other state-approved counsel to take a back seat to private attorneys in advancing interests of the state,” the brief said.
States behind this filing claim that state government claims are unique and deserve a separate treatment in litigation than claims of individuals or the federal courts.
“I am pleased that many other states have recognized the extreme importance that the court acknowledge the authority of independent sovereign states and allow a separate management structure for their claims,” Caldwell said. “It is not right that individual plaintiff attorneys, with no approval from the state, be allowed to determine what’s best for the state’s citizens. It is likewise also inappropriate that these same plaintiff lawyers take any portion of the state’s for their attorney fees and cost.”
It is not know when the federal court might be reviewing this brief.
