Case 2:10-cv-02771-CJB-SS Document 369 Filed 04/20/11 Page 1 of 10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

In re: Oil Spill by the Oil Rig “Deepwater MDL No. 2179
Horizon” in the Gulf of Mexico, on April
20, 2010 SECTION: J

JUDGE BARBIER
This Pleading applies to: No. 10-2771
MAGISTRATE SUSHAN

CLAIMANT STATE OF MINNESOTA’S

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT AND PETITION OF TRITON ASSET LEASING

GMBH, ET AL. FOR EXONERATION FROM OR LIMITATION OF LIABILITY
(Rule 9(h))

and

CLAIM IN LIMITATION (No. 10-2771) (Rule 9(h))

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT AND PETITION OF TRITON ASSET LEASING

GMBH, ET AL. FOR EXONERATION FROM OR LIMITATION OF LIABILITY

1. Claimant State of Minnesota (hereinafter “the State” and “Minnesota”), by

and through its Department of Natural Resources (hereinafter “the DNR”), has suffered

damage and destruction to migratory birds and other natural resources of the State as well

as other damages, losses and/or costs as a result of the oil spill by the oil rig Deepwater

Horizon in the Gulf of Mexico on April 20, 2010.

2. For its Answer to the Complaint and Petition for Exoneration from or

Limitation of Liability filed by Triton Asset Leasing GmbH, Transocean Holdings,

L.L.C., Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc., and Transocean Deepwater, Inc.
 Case 2:10-cv-02771-CJB-SS Document 369 Filed 04/20/11 Page 2 of 10

(hereinafter “Petitioners”), Claimant Minnesota incorporates by reference, as if fully

stated herein, the twelve Defenses and responses to individual allegations presented in the

Master Local Government Entity Answer to Petitioners’ Complaint and Petition. (See

Case No. 10-2771, Document #253, ECF pagination pp. 2-7, First through Twelfth

Defenses and ¶¶ 1-26.)

WHEREFORE, Claimant State of Minnesota, by and through the DNR, prays that

the Petition filed herein seeking exoneration from or limitation of liability and any and all

injunctions or restraining orders granted in this matter be dismissed and dissolved and, in

the alternative, that Petitioners be required to deposit additional security in the amount

required by law, in default of which the exoneration/limitation complaint should be

dismissed and pending which any injunction or restraining order should be dissolved.

CLAIM IN LIMITATION (NO. 10-2771) (RULE 9(H))

3. Claimant State of Minnesota, by and through the DNR, while specifically

reserving all defenses asserted by incorporation above, files its Master Claim in

Limitation in response to the Complaint and Petition for Exoneration filed by Petitioners

as owners, managing owners, owners pro hac vice and/or operators of the oil rig

Deepwater Horizon.

4. The claims presented in this Claim in Limitation are admiralty or maritime

claims within the meaning of Rule 9(h) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Minnesota hereby designates this case as an admiralty or maritime case, and a non-jury

trial pursuant to Rule 9(h) is requested.

2
 Case 2:10-cv-02771-CJB-SS Document 369 Filed 04/20/11 Page 3 of 10

5. Minnesota, by and through the DNR, has suffered damage and destruction

to migratory birds as well as other damages, losses and/or costs as a result of the oil spill

by the oil rig Deepwater Horizon in the Gulf of Mexico on April 20, 2010 (“the Spill”).

6. Minnesota incorporates by reference, as if fully stated and alleged herein,

paragraphs 29 to 103 of the Factual Allegations regarding the Spill that were presented in

the Master Local Government Entity Voluntary Claim in Limitation. (See Case

No. 10-2771, Document #253, ECF pagination pp. 10-26, ¶¶ 29-103.)

7. Under Minnesota law, the ownership of Minnesota’s wild animals is in the

State, in its sovereign capacity, for the benefit of all the people of the State. No person

may destroy wild animals unless authorized under the game and fish laws. Minn. Stat.

§ 97A.025 (2010).

8. The Spill has impacted and continues to impact Minnesota’s natural

resources, grievously harming several species of Minnesota migratory birds.

9. Numerous species of Minnesota migratory birds winter in the Gulf of

Mexico and its adjacent beaches, inland brackish marshes, and swamps. Among these

species are loons, woodcocks, wood ducks, mallards, rails, bitterns, plovers, godwits,

pelicans, scaups, terns, and osprey.

10. Residues from oil and dispersants, as well as other chemicals introduced

into the ecosystem by the Spill, threaten severe harm to all of these species in several

ways, including direct poisoning, habitat destruction, and the contamination of food

sources, both plant and animal.

3
 Case 2:10-cv-02771-CJB-SS Document 369 Filed 04/20/11 Page 4 of 10

11. In the manners described above, the State believes that the Spill has led to

the death or reduced reproductive potential of a large number of Minnesota migratory

birds. The State believes that the population of Minnesota migratory birds that winter in

or near the Gulf will fall below pre-Spill levels.

12. The State, by and through the DNR, is currently designing studies that will

more precisely measure the quantity of damage the Spill has inflicted on Minnesota’s

migratory bird populations.

CLAIMS

I. Negligence

13. Minnesota realleges each and every allegation set forth, directly or by

incorporation, in all preceding paragraphs as if fully restated here.

14. Minnesota incorporates by reference, as if fully stated and alleged herein,

paragraphs 119 to 131 of the negligence claim stated in the Master Local Government

Entity Voluntary Claim in Limitation. (See Case No. 10-2771, Document #253, ECF

pagination pp. 29-32, ¶¶ 119-131.) The duties Petitioners owed to Minnesota are

identical to the duties owed to other Claimants in the instant action, including the ones

joining in the Master Local Government Entity Voluntary Claim. (See id. (describing

duties owed and breached by Petitioners).)

15. As a result of Petitioners’ negligent acts or omissions, Claimant Minnesota

has suffered damage to and destruction of its natural resources, as well as other damages,

losses, and costs.

4
 Case 2:10-cv-02771-CJB-SS Document 369 Filed 04/20/11 Page 5 of 10

II. Gross Negligence and Willful Misconduct

16. Minnesota realleges each and every allegation set forth, directly or by

incorporation, in all preceding paragraphs as if fully restated here.

17. Minnesota incorporates by reference, as if fully stated and alleged herein,

paragraphs 134 to 139 of the claim for gross negligence and willful misconduct stated in

the Master Local Government Entity Voluntary Claim in Limitation. (See Case

No. 10-2771, Document #253, ECF pagination pp. 33-34, ¶¶ 134-39.) The duties

Petitioners owed to Minnesota are identical to the duty owed to other Claimants in the

instant action, including the ones joining in the Master Local Government Entity

Voluntary Claim. (See id. ¶¶ 134-35 (describing duties owed and breached by

Petitioners).)

18. As a result of Petitioners’ gross negligence and/or willful and/or wanton

conduct, Claimant Minnesota has suffered damage to and destruction of its natural

resources, as well as other damages, losses, and costs.

III. Public Nuisance

19. Minnesota realleges each and every allegation set forth, directly or by

incorporation, in all preceding paragraphs as if fully restated here.

20. At common law, a condition, action, or failure to act that unreasonably

interferes with a right common to the general public is a public nuisance. A condition,

action, or failure to act is unreasonable when it is of a continuing nature and the actor

5
 Case 2:10-cv-02771-CJB-SS Document 369 Filed 04/20/11 Page 6 of 10

knows it has a significant effect upon the public right. Restatement (Second) of Torts

§ 821B (1979).

21. Minnesota incorporates by reference, as if fully stated and alleged herein,

paragraphs 142 to 144 of the public nuisance claim stated in the Master Local

Government Entity Voluntary Claim in Limitation. (See Case No. 10-2771, Document

#253, ECF pagination pp. 35-36, ¶¶ 142-44.)

22. As a direct and proximate result of the Petitioners’ creation of a public

nuisance, and their failure to perform their duties and obligations, Claimants have

suffered and will continue to suffer losses and damages including, inter alia, those

necessary to remediate the damage inflicted by the Spill on migratory Minnesota birds

and/or other damages, losses, or costs, for which Claimants are entitled to be

compensated.

23. As a result of the Spill, Petitioners are also each liable for the killing of

migratory Minnesota birds and other wildlife as provided by Minn. Stat. § 97A.341.

Petitioners are liable of each wild bird and all other wildlife unlawfully killed, taken,

caught, possessed or injured, as determined in accordance with Minn. Stat. §§ 97A.341

and .345, and for such attorneys’ fees and costs of litigation as may be applicable by law.

24. Petitioners are liable to Minnesota to take all appropriate actions to remedy

and abate the harm to the environment and public health caused by the public nuisance

they created, and any other relief the Court deems just and appropriate.

6
 Case 2:10-cv-02771-CJB-SS Document 369 Filed 04/20/11 Page 7 of 10

IV. Nuisance

25. Minnesota realleges each and every allegation set forth, directly or by

incorporation, in all preceding paragraphs as if fully restated here.

26. Petitioners’ negligence caused and/or contributed to the blowout and

subsequent Spill which directly and proximately caused an invasion that has interfered

with the use and enjoyment of the animals, waters, property, and other natural and

economic resources of the State of Minnesota, and have materially diminished and

continue to diminish the value thereof, constituting a nuisance.

27. Petitioners were under a duty to take positive action to prevent or abate the

interference, but failed to do so.

28. Minnesota law provides that anything which is injurious to health, or

indecent or offensive to the senses, or an obstruction to the free use of property, so as to

interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property, is a nuisance. Minn. Stat.

§ 561.01 (2010). State law authorizes a suit for damages by any person whose property is

injuriously affected or whose personal enjoyment is lessened by the nuisance. Id.

29. Petitioners’ acts and omissions created a nuisance under both the common

law and Minnesota state law definitions of the tort.

30. Petitioners’ creation of a nuisance proximately caused past, present, and

future damages to Minnesota by allowing oil, chemical dispersants, and other materials

and substances to contaminate Minnesota wildlife.

7
 Case 2:10-cv-02771-CJB-SS Document 369 Filed 04/20/11 Page 8 of 10

31. As a direct and proximate result of the Petitioners’ creation of a nuisance,

and their failure to perform their duties and obligations, Minnesota has suffered and will

continue to suffer damages and losses, including, inter alia, those necessary to pay for

services to protect the environment on behalf of its citizens, as well as inconvenience,

loss of beneficial use, enjoyment, and exclusive possession of property, damage,

destruction, and/or diminution in value of property, loss of tax revenue, income and/or

use, and/or costs of response, removal, clean-up, restoration and/or remediation and/or

other damages, losses, or costs, for which Minnesota is entitled to compensation.

32. Petitioners are liable to Claimants to take all appropriate actions to remedy

and abate the harm to the environment and public health caused by the public nuisance

they created, and any other relief the Court deems just and appropriate.

V. Punitive Damages

33. Minnesota realleges each and every allegation set forth, directly or by

incorporation, in all preceding paragraphs as if fully restated here.

34. Minnesota incorporates by reference, as if fully stated and alleged herein,

paragraphs 161(a) through (j) and 162 of the punitive damages claim stated in the Master

Local Government Entity Voluntary Claim in Limitation. (See Case No. 10-2771,

Document #253, ECF pagination pp. 39-40, ¶¶ 161-62.)

35. Accordingly, under the General Maritime Law (including, but not limited

to, by virtue of the Admiralty Extension Act) and/or under applicable Minnesota or other

8
 Case 2:10-cv-02771-CJB-SS Document 369 Filed 04/20/11 Page 9 of 10

State Law, Minnesota is entitled to an award of punitive damages in an amount to be

determined at trial.

PRAYER FOR REHEARING

WHEREFORE, Claimant Minnesota, acting by and through its Department of

Natural Resources, demands judgment against Petitioners, jointly, severally, and

solidarily, as follows:

(a) Economic and compensatory damages in amounts to be determined at trial;

(b) Punitive damages;

(c) Civil and/or criminal penalties;

(d) Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the maximum rate allowable by

law;

(e) Attorneys’ fees and costs of litigation; and

(f) Such other and further relief available under all applicable state and federal

laws and any relief the Court deems just and appropriate.

9
 Case 2:10-cv-02771-CJB-SS Document 369 Filed 04/20/11 Page 10 of 10

Dated: April 20, 2011 LORI SWANSON

Attorney General
State of Minnesota

s/ Nathan J. Hartshorn______________
NATHAN J. HARTSHORN
Assistant Attorney General
Minnesota Atty. Reg. No. 0320602
(651) 757-1252 (Voice)

445 Minnesota Street, Suite 1800

St. Paul, Minnesota 55101-2127

ATTORNEYS FOR CLAIMANT

STATE OF MINNESOTA, ACTING
BY AND THROUGH ITS DEPARTMENT
OF NATURAL RESOURCES

AG: #2808710-v1

10