In Re: Deepwater Horizon, No. 16-30063 (5th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 16-30063 Document: 00513720443 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/17/2016 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 16-30063 United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED October 17, 2016 IN RE: DEEPWATER HORIZON Lyle W. Cayce Clerk ------------------------------------------LAKE EUGENIE LAND & DEVELOPMENT, INCORPORATED; ET AL, Plaintiffs v. BP EXPLORATION ; PRODUCTION, INCORPORATED; BP AMERICA PRODUCTION COMPANY; BP p.l.c., Defendants - Appellees v. ANDRY LAW FIRM, L.L.C., Movant - Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana Before CLEMENT, PRADO, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. Case: 16-30063 Document: 00513720443 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/17/2016 No. 16-30063 PER CURIAM:* The Andry Law Firm, LLC (“Andry”) moved the district court to enforce its purported settlement with BP Exploration & Production, Inc. (“BP”) and “order the Claims Administrator to promptly pay [Andry’s] final award in the amount of $7,818,693.95.” The district court summarily denied Andry’s motion. Andry appeals, asserting that this court has appellate jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Section 1291 “generally vests courts of appeals with jurisdiction over appeals from final decisions of the district courts.” Cunningham v. Hamilton Cty., 527 U.S. 198, 203 (1999) (internal quotation marks omitted). A decision is final when “it ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment.” Id. at 204 (internal quotation marks omitted). The district court’s decision here is not a final decision because it clearly does not end the litigation between Andry and BP. The decision simply allows the Claims Administrator to comply with the district court’s previous order “to process the claim in accordance with its applicable rules and policies.” We therefore DISMISS this appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction. Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. * 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
