According to an article in BusinessWeek magazine BP has filed papers with in federal court to attempt to have all BP oil spill litigation brought together or “consolidated” in a single court in Houston, Texas.
It is not uncommon for defendants, such as BP Oil, or plaintiff lawyers to seek to have multiple claims, arising out of a single “event”, joined in a single court. It is equally common for defendants to seek to have litigation consolidated in a court or jurisdiction that it believes will be sympathetic or “friendly” (judges, jurors) to the defendant’s interests. So, no surprise that BP would seek to have all litigation fall within the courts of “oil city” Houston.
Frankly, I think it’s a bad move from both a public relations perspective and from a procedural prospective.
From a PR perspective the effort to force all litigation into an “oil city, oil friendly court” clearly positions BP “doing what is good for BP”. No unexpected but not without consequence. Perception begets reality. Could “big oil” have afforded “the risk” of allowing the victims their choice of court?
From a procedural perspective I would imagine that various States, cities, counties, towns and other governmental agencies will be filing claims for lost tax revenues, damage to government property and other claims. Given the real and strong local government interests should ALL litigation be move “out of State”?
What may be really interesting is if the oil spill, through forces of nature or fate, begins to migrate to the beaches and inland waterways of Texas. Then how sympathetic will the jurors and jurists be to the plight of “the injured”?