From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bucano v. BP Expl. & Prod.

United States District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana
Aug 4, 2021
Civil Action 19-13185 (E.D. La. Aug. 4, 2021)

Opinion

Civil Action 19-13185

08-04-2021

WILLIAM BUCANO v. BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INC., ET AL.


SECTION “F”

ORDER AND REASONS

MARTIN L. C. FELDMAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

The pro se plaintiff in this BELO case 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.

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).

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.

But as this Court, the Fifth Circuit, and at least nine other Sections of this Court have uniformly held with regard to BELO 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 Fed.Appx. 430, 434 (5th Cir. 2020) (per curiam).

Because the plaintiff has failed to identify a causation expert in this case, 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.

The plaintiff's deadline for doing so was June 18, 2021.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED: that the defendants' motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. The plaintiff's claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.


Summaries of

Bucano v. BP Expl. & Prod.

United States District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana
Aug 4, 2021
Civil Action 19-13185 (E.D. La. Aug. 4, 2021)
Case details for

Bucano v. BP Expl. & Prod.

Case Details

Full title:WILLIAM BUCANO v. BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INC., ET AL.

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana

Date published: Aug 4, 2021

Citations

Civil Action 19-13185 (E.D. La. Aug. 4, 2021)

Citing Cases

Dixon v. BP Expl. & Prod.

. R. Doc. 17-1 at p. 3 & n.10 (citing McGill v. BP Expl. & Prod. Inc., Case No. 19-60849, 830 Fed.Appx. 430…

Wilson v. BP Expl. & Prod.

Dixon v. BP Expl. & Prod., Inc., Civ. A. No. 20-3272-WBV-JVM, 2022 WL 124026, at *3 (E.D. La. Jan. 13, 2022)…