O'Brien's Response Management, L.L.C. et al v. BP Exploration & Production Inc. et al, No. 2:2019cv01418 - Document 57 (E.D. La. 2020)

Court Description: ORDER AND REASONS granting in part and denying in part 39 Motion to Dismiss. IT IS ORDERED that the Responders' Partial Motion to Dismiss BP's Amended Counterclaims (Rec. Doc. 39) is GRANTED IN PART, and BP's claim for unjust enri chment against the Responders and the accompanying request for disgorgement (Count IV of BP's Amend. Counterclaim, Rec. Doc. 32) are DISMISSED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Responders' Partial Motion to Dismiss BP's Amended Counterclaim (Rec. Doc. 39) is, in all other respects, DENIED. Signed by Judge Carl Barbier on 1/21/2020. (cg)

Download PDF
O'Brien's Response Management, L.L.C. et al v. BP Exploration & Production Inc. et al Doc. 57 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA O’BRIEN’S RESPONSE MANAGEMENT, L.L.C., et al. * CIVIL ACTION * No. 19-CV-01418 * SECTION: J(2) * JUDGE BARBIER * MAG. JUDGE WILKINSON v. BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION INC., et al. ORDER Before the Court is O’Brien’s Response Management, L.L.C. (“O’Brien’s”) and National Response Corporation’s (“NRC,” and together with O’Brien’s, the “Responders”) Partial Motion to Dismiss BP’s Amended Counterclaims. (Rec. Doc. 39). BP Exploration & Production Inc. and BP America Production Company’s (together, “BP”) filed a response (Rec. Doc. 51), to which the Responders filed a reply (Rec. Doc. 56). The Court has considered the motion on the briefs and without oral argument. This Order largely assumes the reader’s familiarity with this case and the instant motion. The Responders seek to dismiss (1) BP’s claim for unjust enrichment against both Responders, including the accompanying request for disgorgement (Count IV of BP’s Amend. Countercl., Rec. Doc. 32); (2) BP’s claim for declaratory judgment against NRC (Count III of BP’s Amend. Countercl., Rec. Doc. 32), and (3) BP’s breach of contract claim against O’Brien’s related to BP’s additional insured status (Court II of BP’s Amend. Countercl., Rec. Doc. 32). As to the unjust enrichment claim, the Court agrees with the Responders that no such claim exists when the claim Dockets.Justia.com is based on a relationship that is controlled by an enforceable contract. Because there is no dispute that a contract did in fact govern the relationship between BP and each of the Responders, the Court will partially grant the motion and dismiss BP’s unjust enrichment claim and the accompanying request for disgorgement.1 As to the remainder of the motion, the Court finds that it should be denied for essentially the reasons advanced by BP. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Responders’ Partial Motion to Dismiss BP’s Amended Counterclaims (Rec. Doc. 39) is GRANTED IN PART, and BP’s claim for unjust enrichment against the Responders and the accompanying request for disgorgement (Count IV of BP’s Amend. Counterclaim, Rec. Doc. 32) are DISMISSED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Responders’ Partial Motion to Dismiss BP’s Amended Counterclaim (Rec. Doc. 39) is, in all other respects, DENIED. New Orleans, Louisiana, this 21st day of January, 2020. ___________________________________ United States District Judge Responders’ argument regarding unjust enrichment relies on Louisiana law. See, e.g., Drs. Bethea, Moustoukas & Weaver LLC v. St. Paul Guardian Ins., 376 F.3d 399, 408 (5th Cir. 2004). While BP does not explicitly argue that Louisiana law does not govern this issue, it does cite to a case that applied Florida law. See Licul v. Volkswagen Grp. of Am., Inc., No. 13-61686, 2013 WL 6328734, at *7 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 5, 2013). However, even Licul held that an unjust enrichment claim should be dismissed when it relies upon the same factual predicate as the plaintiff’s legal cause of action, as “it is not a true alternative theory of relief but rather is duplicative of those legal causes of action.” Id. Therefore, the Court need not and does not decide what law applies here. BP’s unjust enrichment claim fails under either of the cited laws. 1 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.