Larkin v. Cabraser

Background

Billy F. Larkin sued nineteen attorneys and their law firms involved in the Deepwater Horizon Economic and Property Damages Settlement, along with unidentified attorneys. He alleged that the settlement framework improperly handled claims involving Hotel Security Specialists, LLC, and caused the denial of his claim. His causes of action were fraud, legal malpractice, and breach of the settlement agreement.

The settlement arose from the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill and was administered through a court-supervised claims program in multidistrict litigation in the Eastern District of Louisiana. The settlement order stated that the Eastern District of Louisiana retained continuing and exclusive jurisdiction to interpret, implement, administer, and enforce the settlement agreement. Larkin had previously challenged the handling and denial of his claims in proceedings related to that multidistrict litigation.

Motion to Transfer

The defendants moved under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1404(a) and 1406 to transfer the case to the Eastern District of Louisiana or, alternatively, to dismiss it. They argued that the case concerned the settlement agreement and belonged in the district overseeing the multidistrict litigation. They also argued that transfer would promote convenience and fairness.

Larkin opposed transfer. The court summarized his position as arguing that the settlement framework was defective, that the defendants committed fraud and malpractice in creating it, and that the Eastern District of Louisiana would be prejudiced against him because that court had previously ruled against him.

The court held that the action could have been brought in the Eastern District of Louisiana. It found that district had subject-matter jurisdiction over the claims because they involved alleged misconduct relating to the settlement agreement. The court also found venue proper there because several defendants resided there and the settlement agreement was negotiated there.

The court further concluded that transfer was appropriate under Section 1404(a), which permits transfer for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice. It found that the Eastern District of Louisiana had a much stronger connection to the case because the settlement was negotiated and administered through the multidistrict litigation there, and because the underlying incident and related damages occurred in or near that district. The court also stated that transferring the case would avoid having this court effectively relitigate disputes about a settlement framework that did not affect its own citizens.

The court declined to decide whether the case was filed in the wrong venue under Section 1406. It noted, however, that Larkin’s state-law claims appeared duplicative of claims he had previously raised in the Eastern District of Louisiana and that the settlement order retained exclusive jurisdiction over challenges to the settlement’s administration and enforcement.

Rulings

The court GRANTED Defendants’ request to transfer the case to the Eastern District of Louisiana under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), and directed the clerk to transfer the action there.

The court DENIED as moot Larkin’s request to be relieved of service, motion to stay proceedings pending appellate review, motion for contempt and sanctions, and motion for a preliminary injunction. The order terminated Docket Nos. 34, 36, 40, 41, and 44.