eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
 2018-03

In Re: Deepwater Horizon ( 2018 )


Menu:
 
  •      Case: 17-30777      Document: 00514406001         Page: 1    Date Filed: 03/28/2018
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
No. 17-30777
March 28, 2018
Summary Calendar
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
In Re: Deepwater Horizon
__________________________________________
PORTO CASTELO, INCORPORATED
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INCORPORATED; BP AMERICA
PRODUCTION COMPANY; BP, P.L.C.
Defendants-Appellees
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
USDC No. 2:10-MD-2179
Before WIENER, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
This appeal arises from a Business Economic Loss (BEL) claim filed
under the Court Supervised Settlement Program (CSSP) established by the
class action settlement of civil claims stemming from the Deepwater Horizon
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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.
Case: 17-30777     Document: 00514406001     Page: 2   Date Filed: 03/28/2018
No. 17-30777
oil spill. Pursuant to the parties’ settlement agreement, disappointed BEL
claimant Porto Castelo, Incorporated had fourteen days to seek discretionary
review in the district court. Porto Castelo failed to meet the filing deadline and
the district court denied Porto Castelo’s motion to extend the time to file. Porto
Castelo appeals.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1)(B), the district court can,
“for good cause, extend the time on motion made after the time has expired if
the party failed to act because of excusable neglect.” FED. R. CIV. P. 6(b)(1)(B).
We review motions for extension of time for abuse of discretion. See Lujan v.
Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n,
    497 U.S. 871
    , 894–98 (1990); Geiserman v. MacDonald,
    893 F.2d 787
    , 793 (5th Cir. 1990). Even assuming Porto Castelo has shown
that counsel’s personal troubles contributed to his oversight as to the filing
deadline, and that the circumstances presented here may constitute good cause
or excusable neglect, Porto Castelo has not shown that the district court abused
its discretion by declining to grant an extension. See McCarty v. Thaler, 376
F. App’x 442, 443–44 (5th Cir. 2010) (“Even if good cause and excusable neglect
are shown, it nonetheless remains a question of the [district] court’s discretion
whether to grant any motion to extend time under Rule 6(b).” (citing
    Lujan, 497 U.S. at 894
    –98)); cf. Hernandez v. Brazoria Cty.,
    21 F.3d 1108
    ,
    1994 WL 171620
    , at *4 (5th Cir. 1994) (“[T]he weight to be given counsel’s personal and
professional hardships is a matter within the discretion of the district court,
and one which the district court is best equipped to decide.”). Accordingly, the
district court’s denial of Porto Castelo’s motion to extend time is AFFIRMED.
2