Environment
 

Lawyer for levee authority says battle over coastal loss lawsuit is just beginning

When Gov. Bobby Jindal signed a controversial bill retroactively banning the Southeast Louisiana Flood Protection Authority-East from filing lawsuits without his permission, many people thought that would put an end to the suit against 97 oil and gas companies.

They should think again, said the Flood Protection Authority’s lead attorney on the suit.

“In fact, it would not be accurate to say this is even close to being over,” Gladstone Jones said. “It’s barely close to even starting.”

A legal fight over the law aimed at killing the lawsuit is expected to begin in the coming months, with lawyers for the authority arguing that the new law was unconstitutionally passed and does not actually apply to the authority. An initial ruling on those issues is likely to just be the first step in a process that will presumably see appeals that could drag on for months or years.

John Barry, whom the governor removed from the levee authority board for leading the lawsuit effort, now heads the nonprofit Restore Louisiana Now. In a letter to his organization, he recently outlined some of the tactics that lawyers for the Flood Protection Authority may use to keep the suit alive.

Barry described two points of contention: that legislators broke their rules on public notice while moving the bill between committees, and that the language of the law actually exempts the levee authority from the intended oversight.

During the session, lawmakers supporting one bill to stop the suit failed to gain approval in one committee. But they were able to have it amended into another bill that was before a more receptive committee, where it eventually passed.

“So not only was proper notice not given, but [the new bill] as it was heard was entirely different from how it was filed,” Barry wrote. “And it gets even more egregious: forget the lack of notice — even if you were physically in the room when the committee heard [the bill] you could not get a copy of the bill. This violates all sorts of notice and open meetings standards.”

According to Barry, a state court already has ruled that a 2014 bill dealing with hospital closures was unconstitutional because of similar public-notice problems.

He also told his followers that the flood authority is not covered by a section of the new law barring government entities other than parishes from filing suits for oil-related coastal damages.

“However, a local government entity has a very precise legal definition, and that definition does not fit the flood authority,” Barry wrote. “So the bill actually does not prohibit the flood authority from suing. That is a very strong argument that the attorneys will make.”

Anti-suit lawmakers, however, have said they carefully crafted the bill to meet the expected legal challenges.

Jones, who agreed with Barry’s points, laid out the following likely timetable for the litigation.

In the next two weeks, lawyers from both sides will meet with U.S. District Judge Nannette Jolivette Brown to discuss likely pre-trial issues.

Chief among those will be the impact of the new law. The defendants likely will file a motion to have the case dismissed based on it. Jones said his team will ask the judge to rule on the constitutionality of the law.

“We’re likely to ask the judge to first rule on the constitutionality issue,” he said.

That process will take at least three months, Jones said.

Any decision by Brown would likely lead to an appeal by the disappointed side, he said.

“This is just the start of the beginning of this,” Jones said. “We’ve just been waiting for the Legislature to do its thing and the governor to sign the bill, and now we can get down to business.”

Help us report this story     Report an error    
The Lens' donors and partners may be mentioned or have a stake in the stories we cover.
  • Let the marathon begin.

  • dimdingledon

    “We’re likely to ask the judge to first rule on the constitutionality issue,” he said.
    That process will take at least three months, Jones said.
    Translation – billable hours.

  • dimdingledon

    The Barry-Doody led SLFPAE were masters at hiding things from the public and not giving public notices. What Barry now complains about is something the Barry-Doody led SLFPAE has done in the past. See for yourself.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBw96iV9L_o&list=UUxGVN5_SFRTKLAmc-SSraow&index=62

  • dimdingledon

    And lets not forget the entire selection and potential multi-billion dollar contract/payday of Barry’s secret-hand-picked-trial attorney was done without public notice also.

  • dimdingledon

    Is it only in Louisiana where a law that nullifies a lawsuit do the attorneys challenge the constitutionality of the law while billing a state entity for the hours to execute the constitutional challenge after the state already declared the lawsuit null and void. I guess next we will have attorneys for convicted murders filing suit on the constitutionality of passing laws that made murder in the state against the law.

  • dimdingledon

    Barry’s famous line, “If you broke it, fix it” apparently does not apply to Barry, Doody, the SLFPAE or the Corps of Engineers. All have participated in breaking the new flood protection system by allowing another inadequate system to be built that fails to protect against our actual flood threat. We’ve been given another system in name only (ASINO) and no one (including Barry) is asking anyone to fix it. We’ve been promised flood protection and we got another lemon of a system.

  • dimdingledon

    Tying this up in court is the absolute worse thing that could happen to the state. The biggest enemy we now face is time. The more time passes, the more coast and wetlands we lose and the more vulnerable we become to flooding from storm surges caused by hurricanes. The only group who would benefit from a long drawn out court battle are the attorneys who bill for the hours worked.

  • jeffsadow

    I don’t see the argument tying this to SCR 48 of the past session. That bill didn’t get a sudden scheduling or amending. It did what it said it would do from the start.
    Regardless, soon enough pro-suit members will be off the authority to drop the suit, even if it has to swallow the poison pill. Then, accountability and responsible government wins.