Six months in, the consolidated federal class action lawsuit from the Orange County Oil Spill has become an international question of maritime law.
The original defendants, pipeline operator Amplify Energy Corp., have shifted the blame onto the owners and operators of two cargo ships they claim damaged their pipeline during a January, 2021, storm.
Mediation between the class action litigants and Amplify Energy Corp., which owns and operates the pipeline, is set for June 2, in front of former federal judges Layn Phillips and Sally Shushan.
Amplify had filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ complaint March 23. A hearing on that motion has been continued to an unspecified date.
Plaintiffs’ response to that motion is to be provided by May 4.
In a Feb. 28 third-party complaint, Amplify claimed two cargo ships, the Beijing – owned by the Liberian Capetanissa Maritime Corp. and managed by the Greek Costamare Shipping Co., and the Danit – owned by the Swiss Mediterranean Shipping Co., and the Panamanian Dordellas Finance Corp., damaged the pipeline and should be held responsible.
In a separate suit filed March 31, the Danit’s owners denied the Danit struck the pipeline, claimed to have been following Coast Guard orders when anchoring. They claimed exoneration from any claims resulting from the oil spill due to maritime law.
The Beijing’s owners are claiming the lawsuit against them has no jurisdiction.
The Danit is 1,200 feet long and 170 feet wide, and can carry 14,000 containers, Amplify claimed. The Beijing is 1,100 feet long.
The ships were anchored close to the pipeline, marked off limits on nautical maps, in the San Pedro Bay Jan. 25, 2021, waiting to unload their goods when they were warned of an approaching storm, Amplify claimed.
While other ships moved to deeper waters, the Danit and Beijing did not, Amplify claimed. The storm brought winds of 63 miles per hour and waves of 17 feet. The ships dragged a 4,000-foot section of the pipeline, Amplify claimed.
The companies did not tell Amplify of their actions, and the Marine Exchange, also a defendant in Amplify’s complaint, did not alert Amplify, the complaint claimed.
The Coast Guard announced that the Danit was “involved in an anchor-dragging incident” close to the pipeline during the storm in an Oct. 16 press release, and claimed the same of the Beijing Nov. 19.
A location-tracking map presented by Amplify shows Danit crossing the pipeline at least nine times, and the Beijing six times, during the storm.
The pipeline crack was near an area crossed by both ships, Amplify claimed.
Amplify held four causes of action:
- Contribution under the Oil Pollution Act.
- Negligence per se in admiralty law
- Negligence in admiralty law
- Trespass in admiralty law
Beijing’s attempt to quash
Capetanissa lawyers requested the judge throw out the complaint against them for lack of personal jurisdiction April 7.
Their motion claims Amplify’s proof they served the complaint was false and misleading. Amplify claimed to serve the complaint at the Virginia office of Capetanissa’s chief financial officer, Christine Dohorty.
Capetanissa claimed the woman’s name was actually spelled Doherty, that she was not the CFO or an employee of Capetanissa, that Capetanissa did not have a United States office, and that Doherty was actually the CFO for the Liberian International Ship and Corporate Registry.
The company also claimed that the Central District Court had no jurisdiction because Capetanissa is not organized or registered in the United States and has no employees or offices in the United States.
The judge has not yet ruled on the company’s request.
Danit’s attempt to exonerate
Dordellas Finance Corp., a Panamanian owner of the Danit and a subsidiary of the Mediterranean Shipping Co., claimed in their complaint to exonerate that they were acting as the Coast Guard directed them to.
The Coast Guard continued to direct ships to anchor in the area the Danit was anchored in leading up the storm, Dordellas claimed.
The Coast Guard did not instruct the Danit to heave anchor and put to sea, despite monitoring the ship’s movements for anchor dragging, Dordellas claimed. There was also no evidence their anchor came into contact with the pipeline, they claimed. Even if the pipeline was dragged during the storm, Amplify failed to act as a prudent pipeline owner by not inspecting the pipeline and by failing to shut the pipeline off as soon as a spill was detected, Dordellas claimed.
The company applied for court orders from the California Central District to gain testimony from the Beijing’s crew in November.
The application requested Beijing’s Second Officer, Robert Ledesma, to be detained and interviewed, and claimed he was fleeing the country. It was rushed to the judge when Dordellas’ counsel found out that Ledesma was presently heading to the airport.
The Beijing also was accelerating its departure from the United States, the application claimed. Dordellas requested their testimony in anticipation of litigation from the oil spill.
During the Jan. 25 storm, the Beijing came within 560 feet of the Danit, Danit’s counsel claimed.
The Beijing was dragging its anchor while the winds were pushing it toward the Danit, Danit’s counsel claimed.
The Beijing’s captain told the Long Beach Vessel Traffic Service that it was going to raise its anchor, but did not do so for several hours, indicating to Danit’s consultant that the Beijing could not raise its anchor or control its movement.
Central District of California Judge Dolly Gee granted the order to perpetuate testimony hours before Ledesma would have flown out of the country.
Amplify’s attempt to dismiss
After Amplify’s third-party complaint, the class-action plaintiffs submitted an amended complaint March 21, reiterating their causes against Amplify.
Amplify argued March 23 that their case should be thrown out, because it is based on state law, and federal law would apply to the oil spill from the outer continental shelf.
Case information
The class action complaint case number 8:21-cv-01628.
Read the original complaint from Ontario firm McCune Wright Arevalo here.
Read Follow Our Court’s coverage of the complaint here.
Read the first amended consolidated class action complaint here.
Case number for Dordellas’ complaint: 2:22-cv-02153 .
Read Dordellas’ complaint for exoneration here.
Read the third-party complaint filed by Amplify against the shipping companies here.
Wylie Aitken of Santa Ana’s Aitken*Aitken*Cohn, Stephen Larson of Costa Mesa’s Larson, LLP and Lexi Hazam of San Francisco’s Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP are the co-lead counsel for the class action complaint. Aitken*Aitken*Cohn also has Riverside and San Bernardino offices.
David Wright, Richard McCune, James Perry and Mark Richards of Ontario’s McCune Wright Arevalo represent a tackle shop in the class action complaint. Wright was assigned by lead counsel for plaintiffs to attempt to effect service on the Mediterranean Shipping Co., Dordellas Finance Corp., Costamare Shipping Co. and Capetanissa.
California Central District Judge David Carter presides.
