Bucano v. BP Exploration & Production, Inc. et al, No. 2:2019cv13185 - Document 35 (E.D. La. 2021)
Court Description: ORDER AND REASONS: GRANTING 34 Motion for Summary Judgment, as stated herein. Signed by Judge Martin L.C. Feldman on 08/04/2021. (am)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Bucano v. BP Exploration & Production, Inc. et al Doc. 35 Case 2:19-cv-13185-MLCF-DPC Document 35 Filed 08/04/21 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA WILLIAM BUCANO CIVIL ACTION v. NO. 19-13185 BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INC., ET AL. SECTION “F” ORDER AND REASONS The pro se 1 plaintiff in this BELO case 2 claims that his assistance in the Deepwater Horizon clean-up effort exposed him to harmful substances which in turn caused him to develop multiple myeloma. His theory is, of course, plausible in the abstract. But as this Court, the Fifth Circuit, and at least nine other Sections of this Court have uniformly held with regard to BELO 1 Following the plaintiff’s deposition in this case, his counsel – presumably sensing defeat – withdrew. On the same day, the Court stayed all discovery and motion practice for thirty days, or until the plaintiff obtained new counsel. The plaintiff’s thirty days to engage new counsel have come and gone, but no new counsel has appeared on his behalf. As a result, the Court now considers the plaintiff a pro se litigant. See Order Granting Mot. to Stay (June 7, 2021). 2 The “BELO” acronym is a shorthand for the Back-End Litigation Option available to class members under a class action settlement BP reached with individuals in the plaintiff’s position. The BELO process provides a litigation vehicle to class members seeking compensation for “Later-Manifested Physical Conditions” which were not immediately apparent at the time of settlement. 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:19-cv-13185-MLCF-DPC Document 35 Filed 08/04/21 Page 2 of 2 plaintiffs in the plaintiff’s position, “[a]bsent expert testimony, [a BELO plaintiff] cannot meet his burden of proof on causation.” Baptiste v. BP Expl. & Prod., Inc., 2020 WL 2063678, at *3 (E.D. La. Apr. 29, 2020); see also McGill v. BP Expl. & Prod., Inc., 830 F. App’x 430, 434 (5th Cir. 2020) (per curiam). Because the plaintiff has failed to identify a causation expert in this case, 3 he cannot meet his burden of proof and the defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See, e.g., Baptiste, 2020 WL 2063678, at *3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED: that the defendants’ motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. The plaintiff’s claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. New Orleans, Louisiana, August 4, 2021 _____________________________ MARTIN L. C. FELDMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 3 The plaintiff’s deadline for doing so was June 18, 2021. 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.
