Criminal,
Environmental & Energy
Apr. 26, 2019
Pipeline fined $3.35M, instead of $1.25B requested, judge also denies prosecution demand for probation
A superior court judge ordered an oil pipeline company Thursday to pay a fine of $3.25 million, a tiny fraction of the $1.25 billion the prosecution had requested for criminal negligence in handling an alleged 142,000 gallon spill off the coast. The judge also denied the prosecution's demand to put the company on probation.
SANTA BARBARA -- A superior court judge ordered an oil pipeline company Thursday to pay a fine of a fraction of what prosecutors sought for criminal negligence in handling an alleged 142,000 gallon spill off the coast and rejected prosecutors' request to place the company on probation because he said no case law allows it.
"I'm not going where no judge has gone before," Santa Barbara County Superior Court Judge James Herman said. He fined Plains All American Pipeline LLP $3.35 million instead of the $1.25 billion the prosecution sought. A hearing in July will determine restitution fines for possible victims affected by the spill, of which there might be thousands who have also filed civil suit, the judge said.
Since Plains is a corporation but was treated as an individual in the criminal prosecution, and since an individual has the right to decline probation and serve a prison sentence instead, Plains appeared to have exercised that right.
The question then became: Can a corporate entity such as an oil company which obviously cannot physically be jailed avoid serving probation?
"Your honor, you said you 'don't want to go where no judge has gone before. The problem with that is, we are somewhere nobody has been before," Kevin Weichbrod of the Santa Barbara County district attorney's office said. "There's no case law that supports exactly what's happening. ... We are asking the court to do what is right and just and not allow a corporate defendant to say, 'I don't want to do this because this is not what I want,' in terms of punishment. It is what the people feel is an absurd result," said Weichbrod, who prosecuted the case in conjunction with the state attorney general's office.
Deputy Attorney General Brett Morris told the court probation was necessary to enforce certain terms of sentencing and to ensure Plains complies with certain safety regulations it allegedly violated.
"We need the probation, we need the probation to monitor and to have an auditor, and to have somebody look at their pipeline, at their operations," Morris argued, "to tell us if they're going to do what they should be doing because clearly they are not complying with ... the state fire marshal or any other requirements of the operation of a pipeline."
Plains was convicted in September of one felony and eight misdemeanors relating to the 2015 spill that occurred after a pipeline burst near Refugio State Beach. The pipeline was closed but much of the surrounding wilderness, residential and business properties were impacted, authorities said. People v. Plains All American Pipeline LP, 1495091 (Santa Barbara Super. Ct., filed May 16, 2016).
In a statement after the sentencing, Plains said, "We take our responsibility to safely deliver energy resources very seriously, and we are committed to doing the right thing. We are sorry that this release happened, and we have and will continue to work hard to re-earn the trust of area residents."
Shortly after being convicted, Plains, represented by Gary Lincenberg of Bird Marella Boxer Wolpert Nessim Drooks Lincenberg & Row PC, filed a motion to dismiss or retry the felony count. Herman denied the motion.
"Don't let the defendant escape, so let's not interpret the statue in an absurd way," Morris argued to the judge Thursday. "We don't have a case that says yes or no that a corporation can reject ... a defendant can reject if those conditions are more onerous than incarceration."
Herman replied: "Here's the issue you've got: I put Plains on probation. Plains violates the terms of probation. ... They're still not going to prison. On the other hand, if I retain jurisdiction over post fines in terms of restitution and there is a failure to pay the restitution, contempt is a remedy."
"The problem is this is a corporate case, and that's something the Legislature might want to take a look at. Without a case in the corporate context that says the court can impose probation on a corporation when it doesn't want to be on probation, that's difficult," Herman said.
Blaise Scemama
blaise_scemama@dailyjournal.com
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
Jeremy_Ellis@dailyjournal.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 213-229-5424
Send a letter to the editor:
Email: letters@dailyjournal.com