Watts Lawsuit Vietnamese Fishermen

Case 2:14-cv-00039-CJB-SS Document 1 Filed 01/07/14 Page 1 of 62
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
TAM V. LE, THIM T. NGUYEN,
TAI LAM, DUNG VAN NGUYEN,
HUNG VAN PHAM, MINH TAN VO,
DAVID NGUYEN, L.V. MARINE
CORPORATION, LADY MORE LLC,
NATURAL NINE, LLC,
QUYET PHAM, NHAT VAN NGUYEN,
DUY QUOCHA, THERESA T.
NGUYEN, THINH T. NGUYEN
LISA NGUYEN, LEE VAN NGUYEN,
AND THANH LINH VU NGUYEN,
individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated,
Plaintiffs
VS.
MIKAL WATTS, HUNTER CRAFT,
FRANCISCO GUERRA, AND
WATTS GUERRA CRAFT LLP
Defendants
CIVIL CASE NO.___________
Judge _____________________
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
CLASS ACTION PURSUANT

TO FED. R. CIV. P. 23
PLAINTIFFS ORIGINAL CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
Plaintiffs herein are appearing both (1) individually and as representatives of members of
a putative class of individuals who suffered Private Economic Losses and Property Damages as a
result of the acts and omissions of Defendants; (2) individually and as representatives of
thousands of Vietnamese American fishermen (boat owners, captains, and crew members) who
are members of the Class Action for Private Economic Losses and Property Damages under the
Seafood Program which is under the Jurisdiction of this Court, and who have been and will be
severely damaged by Defendants' action, because their payments from the Seafood Settlement
Fund, to be distributed in late February or March of 2014, have been requested to be suspended
by BP; or the seafood claimants whose first round of payments have been and will be delayed
due to BP filing a lawsuit against Mikal Watts and his Firm;1 and 3) individually and as
representatives of the proposed class(es) of non-members of the Class Action for Private
Economic Losses and Property Damages, and whose identities were used by Defendants. These
Plaintiffs bring the following claims against Defendants, Mikal Watts, Hunter Craft, Francisco
Guerra, Watts Guerra Craft LLP, and their co-conspirators, and respectfully show the Honorable
Court the following:
I. INTRODUCTION
1.
This case involves a well-known and powerful law firm profiting at the expense of the
hard-working Gulf Coast fishermen, the majority of whom are Vietnamese-American, as well as
business owners whose lives and ability to earn a living were devastated by the Deepwater
Horizon disaster. At its core, this tragedy involves Mr. Mikal Watts (interchangeably Mr.
Watts or "Watts"), Mr. Hunter Craft (Mr. Craft), Mr. Francisco Guerra (Mr. Guerra), and
their law firm, Watts Guerra Craft LLP (WG)2 and their co-conspirators.3 Mr. Watts and Mr.
Guerra are both Board Certified in Personal Injury Trial Law by the Texas Board of Legal
Specialization.4

1
The attorneys' fees paid by this class will be excluded of (or minus) the value of their payments from the
DHECC under the seafood program which is between them and their counsel.
2
As stated below, in the midst of the ongoing federal investigation regarding his Deepwater Horizon client
list, Mr. Watts has since resigned from the PSC (albeit during trial). Shortly after Mr. Watts resignation from the
PSC, Mr. Craft ceased his association with the firm previously known as Watts Guerra Craft (now known as Watts
Guerra LLP) (herein after referred to interchangeably as "WGC" or "WG"). WGC no longer exists and became WG.
3
Their co-conspirators are the ones who conspired with Watts to hide/suppress the fact that Defendants
misused the identities of many Vietnamese and other names.
4
As a Texas lawyer, Watts and WG are always subject to the Rules of the Texas State Bar and standard of
care. The courts will likely find that an attorney who holds himself out as a specialist should be held to the standard
of care for a reasonably prudent expert in that field. See e.g. Hill v. Perel, 923 S.W.2d 636, 638 (Tex. App.
Houston [1st Dist.] 1995, no writ) (in summary judgment affidavit, Plaintiffs expert said attorneys handling of the
claim fell below the standard of care required by a board-certified attorney in the area of personal injury trial law);
see also Streber v. Hunter, 221 F.3d 701, 722 (5th Cir. 2000) (applying Texas law; clients expert witness
2.
Mr. Watts and WG were involved in the misappropriation of identities of many of
thousands of Gulf Coast Vietnamese-Americans in order to increase his chances of obtaining a

position on the Deepwater Horizon Plaintiffs Steering Committee (the PSC) for their own
financial gain. (See Exhibit 1--Sworn and Notarized Application of Mikal C. Watts for Plaintiff's
Steering Committee filed on August 27, 2010, at p.1 (Doc. No. 106)).5 ("I have previously filed
multiple civil actions in this litigation [MDL. No. 2179] and currently represent over 40,000
plaintiffs [...] pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 1746, I declare under penalty of perjury
that the foregoing is true and correct.")
3.
Mr. Mikal Watts and WG filed over 25 complaints with various federal courts and the
Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation between June 3, 2010, and October 4, 2010, which
cases were transferred to MDL 2179 before the Honorable Carl Barbier in the Eastern District of
Louisiana. Mikal Watts and WG held out to the Court that they were attorneys who representedtens of thousands of Vietnamese-American "clients." See e.g. Complaint by Plaintiffs Tran Ngoc
Dung, et al., June 3, 2010, Doc. No. 1-2, Dung, et al. v. BP Exploration & Prod., Inc. et al., No.
2:10-CV-03178 (E.D.La.) (Barbier, J.); see also First Amended Complaint by Plaintiffs Tran
Ngoc Dung, et al., October 19, 2010 (Doc. No. 563).6 (See e.g. Exhibit 2 attached with tens of
sufficiently described standard of care for tax specialist). An attorney is liable for his own negligence. See Cosgrove
v. Grimes, 774 S.W.2d 662, 664 (Tex. 1989). A law firm is liable for the negligence of a partner of the firm. See
Cook v. Brundidge, Fountain, Elliott & Churchill, 533 S.W.2d 760, 763 (Tex. 1976). A law firm is liable to the
same extent as a partner who, acting in the ordinary course of business or with the authority of the other partners,
engages in any wrongful act or omission and causes loss or injury to any person. Id. An attorney is also liable for the
negligent acts of a non-lawyer employee as long as the act was committed (1) within the scope of the general
authority of the employee, (2) in furtherance of the attorneys business and (3) for the accomplishment of the object
for which the person was employed. Moser v. Davis, 79 S.W.3d 162, 167 (Tex. App. Amarillo 2002, no pet.).
5
"Doc. No." means the docket entries in MDL 2179.
As will be discussed later, Mikal Watts and WG could not provide contracts or consents with these
"clients" as required by the Texas Bar's Rules of Professional Conduct.
thousands of Vietnamese names. These complaints and short form joinders are also available on
the docket report for MDL 2179).
4.
Upon information and belief, Mr. Watts and WG committed these blatant wrongs against
Plaintiffs, and the members of the putative class, under the arrogant presumption that this
minority group of Vietnamese fishermen7 would be scared of Defendants power and influence
and thus would bow their heads. Little did they know that the Vietnamese are fighters to their
very bones. Since their immigration to the United States after the fall of South Vietnam, the
Vietnamese fishermen have successfully sued and fought fearlessly against Ku Klux Klan
members,8 various mafias, corrupt government officials, global corporations and communist
The term "Vietnamese fishermen" means fisher men and fisher women. There are many Vietnamese boat
owners, captains, and crew members (deckhands) who are women. Together with their fathers, brothers, husbands,
and sons, these women have resiliently undergone trials and tribulations, have worked at high sea and have fought
nobly and fearlessly against numerous enemies while taking care of their children.
8
See The Vietnamese Fishermen Association, et al. v., The Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, et al.,518 F. Supp.
993 (S.D. Tex. 1981). This is a well-known civil rights case filed on April 16, 1981 by an organization of
Vietnamese fishermen and individual Vietnamese fishermen led by Colonel Nam Van Nguyen and represented by
Attorneys Morris Dees (with the assistance of Attorney David Berg, one of the most reputable lawyers in Houston,
Texas and in the United States) against the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, the Grand Dragon of the Ku Klux Klan in
the State of Texas, certain unknown members of the Ku Klux Klan, and others. The Vietnamese fishermen asserted
that the Ku Klux Klan Defendants violated the Vietnamese fishermen's rights under several civil rights statutes such
as 42 U.S.C. 1981, 1982, 1985(c), and 1986; the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States
Constitution; the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 1, 2, 15, and 26; the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. 1962 and 1964; and the common law torts of assault, trespass to personal property,
intentional infliction of emotional distress, and intentional interference with contractual relations. The Vietnamese
fishermen contended that via the Klu Klux Klan Defendants illegal acts, the Ku Klux Klan Defendants conspired to
deprive the Vietnamese fishermen and their class of equal protection of the laws and of equal privileges and
immunities under the laws; and that the defendants acted out of a class-based animus against Vietnamese persons.
The Federal District Court, Judge Gabriel MacDonald, in a 1981 Civil Rights Decision, found that the Ku
Klux Klan Defendants violated 42 U.S.C. 1981, 1982, 1985(c), and 1986 and committed the common law torts of
intentional infliction of emotional distress and intentional interference with contractual relations. This civil rights
class of Vietnamese fishermen instantly won national recognition. For decades, it has been a very important civil
rights case for law students and civil rights scholars to study. On March 15, 2013, in a heartfelt speech delivered to
the National Minority Lawyers and Legal Association, Federal Judge Gregg Costa, the youngest Federal District
Judge in the United States and one of the most brilliant legal scholars in the country (who has just been appointed by
President Barrack Obama on December 17, 2013 to serve on the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals) said that, as to the
Civil Rights Movement in the United States, The Vietnamese Fishermen Association. v. The Knights of the Ku Klux
Klanis as important as Brown v. Board of Education.
governments, and many other villains. As Congressman Al Green of Texas said in one of his
noted speeches: "Do not ever mess with the Vietnamese Fishermen."
5.
According to court filings, as of today, out of 44,510 crew members, Mr. Watts and WG
only filed 648 individual crew members' claims with the Deepwater Horizon Economic Claim
Center (the "DHECC"). Of these 648 crew claimants, only 8 have been found eligible for
payment, with 17 claims still pending. Mr. Watts failed to file claims for more than 98 percent of
the persons whom he claimed to represent, and the deadline for filing claims with the DHECC
(January 22, 2013) has passed. Out of the 648 claims submitted by Mr. Watts, 96 percent of
those claims were denied.
6.
As noted above, based on Mr. Watts' representations, on October 8, 2010, United States
District Court Judge Carl Barbier appointed Mr. Watts to the Plaintiffs Steering Committee in
MDL2179. (See Exhibit 3, Pretrial Order dated October 8, 2010 (Doc. No. 506) and Pretrial
Order 53, dated September 10, 2012(Doc. No. 7350) (reappointment of the members of the
PSC)).
7.
Since their appointment on October 8, 2010, Mr. Watts and WG used their fame to obtain
many mass tort cases and appointments to other PSCs in other MDLs. For example, in Mr.
Watts and WGs advertisements and solicitation letters related to MDL 2385 In Re Pradaxa
Products Liability Litigation, Mr. Watts and WG represented in ads that: "Watts has become
famous for his landmark recoveries in vehicle rollover cases and his lead trial team position with
the BP Multi-District Litigation (MDL No. 2179)," (Emphasis added). (See Exhibit 4 -- WG's
advertisement before the February 2013 raid on his office by federal law enforcement officers. It
Today, 33 years later, by using the names of tens of thousands of Vietnamese fishermen, Watts and WG
and their co-conspirators acted out of a class-based animus against Vietnamese persons. As such, they violated: 42
U.S.C. 1981, 1982, 1985(c), and 1986; the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18
U.S.C. 1962 and 1964; the common law torts of negligence and/or misappropriation of personal identities,
negligent misrepresentation, and state and federal common law breaches of fiduciary duty.
is thus clearly known to the public that Mr. Watts used tens of thousands of Vietnamese names to
increase his chance to obtain his famed position; and Mr. Watts and WG admitted that. Id.9
8.
On April 18, 2011, the New York Times published an expos, titled Many Hit By Spill
Now Caught In Claims Process, 10 which led to an investigation by the United States
Department of Justice and the FBI, and ultimately to raids by the Secret Service of the
Defendants' two offices in San Antonio, Texas in February of 2013.11 On March 13, 2013,
United States District Court Judge Carl Barbier ordered that, "The Clerk shall remove Mr. Watts
from the list of PSC and the Class Counsel Members." (See Exhibit 8, Doc. No. 8894.)
Thereafter, all references to the BP oil spill litigation and Watts' PSC appointment on WG's
website were taken down. (See also Exhibit 5). The Vietnamese fishermen fortunately have
saved a copy of WG's old website.
9.
Mr. Watts and WG committed various torts against the Vietnamese fishermen and others,
such
as
misappropriation
(or
negligent
misappropriation)
of
identity,
negligent
misrepresentation, violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act

(RICO), violation of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA), and breach of the
fiduciary duty that they owed to the entire putative class of claimants insofar as Watts served as a
member of the PSC and also had a "lead trial team position with the BP Multi-District
Litigation."(See Exhibit 4 and 4 A.)

9
See also Exhibit 5 -- Mr. Watts' and WG's current website, which does not contain a single reference to the
BP Oil Spill Case, Watts's PSC appointment or Watts' purported representation of tens of thousands of fishermen:
http://www.wattsguerra.com).
10
The Times article states that: Watts is on the plaintiffs steering committee selected by Judge Barbier. A
large list of clients can help secure a seat on the lucrative committee. Mr. Watts declared on his application that he
had 41,000 clients, a tally he now puts at 43,000. All of them, he said in an interview, came through referrals from
other lawyers. (See Exhibit 6.)
11
Houston Chronicle: "Feds raid the offices of BP plaintiff attorney." (A nationally recognized plaintiff's
lawyer and Democratic Party darling who last year hosted a private fundraiser for President Barrack Obama finds
himself under federal investigation over the legitimacy of his client list in case stemming from the deadly 2010 BP
Oil Spill"). (See Exhibit 7.)
10.
By their actions, Mr. Watts and WG prejudiced the rights of tens of thousands of
members of the Gulf Coast Vietnamese-American community, along with other similarly
situated individuals. Mr. Watts and WGs wrongdoings shall not stand unopposed.12
11.
The actions of Mr. Watts and WG undermine the foundational precepts that to be an
attorney is an honor and that the practice of law is a profession rather than a business. As
with any profession, occasional disagreements or misunderstandings with clients are
unavoidable. But the actions of Mr. Watts and WG, as set forth in this Complaint, are something
else entirely. Mr. Watts and WG filed suits without permission on behalf of tens of thousands of
"clients" with whom they did not have a legitimate attorney-client relationship; who had never
signed a written contingency fee contract or consent to refer form providing Mr. Watts and WG
authority to represent them; and who had never met with them or even heard of them.
Defendants made misrepresentations to many federal courts, the JPML, the GCCF, the DHECC,
other members of the PSC, the media, the American public and the U.S. government regarding
the number of Vietnamese-Americans they actually represented.
12.
This is not the first time Mr. Watts, Mr. Craft and WG have been implicated in this type
of action. A case involving substantially similar allegations has been publicly reported regarding
an elderly Hispanic woman named Cayetana Rivas, further emphasizing the pattern and practice
of Mr. Watts and WG of preying on societys most vulnerable members. The article
documenting the Rivas case reported in pertinent part:
A lawsuit against the company that employed Antonio Rivas was
quickly filed by lawyers from the Watts Law Firm on behalf of
Rivas' widow, Maria Zuniga, and his aging mother, Cayetana
Rivas, who lived across the Rio Grande in a small border village.
In August 2003, the case was settled for $1.8 million, but that did

12
The unequivocal response from the Vietnamese fishermen and their Vietnamese counsel recalls the words
of King David, paraphrased: "[Watts and WG] come against [us] with a dagger, spear, and sword, but [we] come
against[them] in the name of the Lord . . . [for these defendants] have defied Him." See 1 Samuel 17:45 (Exhibit 9).
not end the matter. Now pending in Hidalgo County is another

suit, naming Mikal Watts, Zuniga, and lawyers Hunter Craft and
Charles Argento as defendants. It claims that Cayetana Rivas was
deceived and cheated in her son's wrongful death suit. It accuses
Argento and the lawyers for the Watts firm of prosecuting the
wrongful death case without ever finding Rivas in Mexico, much
less signing her up as a client, as required by state bar rules. "They
told the court that they knew Cayetana Rivas, that they represented
her and that they had her permission to represent her, all of which
were false," [Plaintiffs counsel] Robinson said. One of the critical
allegations of the suit is that the plaintiff's lawyers falsely claimed
to have been retained by Rivas when they have never met her,
and she was thus completely unaware of the litigation.
After reviewing a copy of the pending suit, Tom Watkins, an
Austin lawyer who is chairman of the Texas Supreme Court's task
force to rewrite the disciplinary rules for lawyers, said the alleged
absence of a contract is always a fatal flaw. "If the allegations in
the petition are true, they should forfeit their whole fee," he said
of the lawyers involved. "If you don't have a contract to represent
someone, you have no authority to file a lawsuit, and all the stuff
that later went wrong flows from the fact that they started out
wrong."13[Emphasis added.]
II. PARTIES
13.
Made Plaintiffs herein are: Tam V. Le, Thim T. Nguyen, Tai Lam, Dung Van Nguyen,
Hung Van Pham, Minh Tan Vo, and David Nguyen, appearing both individually and on behalf of
all others putative class members who suffered a private economic loss and property damage and
whose identities were misappropriated by Defendants.
14.
Also made Plaintiffs herein are L.V. Marine Corporation, Natural Nine, LLC, Lady More
LLC., Quyet Pham, Nhat Van Nguyen, and Duy Quoc Ha, who appear both individually and on
behalf of all similarly situated putative class members who suffered a private economic loss and
property damage, and which Plaintiffs sustained damages as a result of their BP payments from
the DHECC being delayed due to Mr. Watts' misconduct.

13
See Exhibit 10 -- John MacCormack, Suit Claim Lawyers Cheated Aging Mom, Express News, April 12,
2010, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto; see also Rule 1.04(f) of the Texas Rules of Professional
Conduct.
15.
Also made Plaintiffs herein are Lee Nguyen, Lisa Nguyen, Lien Nguyen, Thanh - Linh
Vu Nguyen, Theresa T. Nguyen, and Thinh T. Nguyen who appear both individually and on
behalf of putative class members who are non-members of the Class Action for Private
Economic Losses and Property Damages.
16.
Made Defendant here is Mr. Mikal Watts (Watts), who is a Texas citizen who is duly
licensed to practice law in the State of Texas, is Board Certified by the Texas Board of Legal
Specialization in Personal Injury Trial Law, and who resides in Bexar County, Texas. He may
be served with process at his principal place of business located at 4 Dominion Drive, Building
3, Suite 100, San Antonio, Texas 78257. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Mr. Watts,
because Mr. Watts claimed to represent more than 40,000 putative class members in the Class
Action litigation before this Honorable Court, many of whom alleged to be residents of
Louisiana. Mr. Watts otherwise participated in the Class Action litigation before this Court as a
member of the Plaintiffs' Steering Committee until his resignation from that committee on March
13, 2013. Mr. Watts consented to the continuing, ongoing, and exclusive jurisdiction of this
Court for any suit arising out of or relating to the Settlement Agreement. (See Ex. 11 -- The
Seafood Compensation Program of the Deepwater Horizon Economic and Property Damages
Settlement Agreement, Sec. 18.1.)
17.
Also made Defendant herein is Mr. Hunter Craft (Craft), who is a Texas citizen, duly
licensed to practice law in the State of Texas and who resides in Harris County, Texas. He may
be served with process at his principal place of business located at 2402 Dunlavy, Ste. 300,
Houston, Texas 77006.
18.
Also made Defendant herein is Mr. Francisco Guerra (Guerra), who is a Texas citizen
duly licensed to practice law in the State of Texas, is Board Certified by the Texas Board of
Legal Specialization in Personal Injury Trial Law, and who resides in Bexar County, Texas. He
9
may be served with process at his principal place of business located at 4 Dominion Drive,
Building 3, Suite 100, San Antonio, Texas 78257.
19.
Also made Defendant herein is Watts Guerra Craft LLP (WG), a Texas limited liability
partnership which has continuous and systematic contacts with the Eastern District of Louisiana.
At all times relevant to the facts alleged in the Complaint, WG operated a law office in Houston,
Harris County, Texas. WG may be served with process by serving the named Partner Mikal
Watts at the firms primary place of business located at 4 Dominion Drive, Building 3, Suite 100,
San Antonio, Texas 78257. This Court has personal jurisdiction over WG, because the firm and
its agents alleged that they represented more than 40,000 claimants in complaints and other
documents filed in the Deepwater Horizon litigation pending before this Court, and because the
firm, through its agents, consented to the continuing, ongoing, and exclusive jurisdiction of this
Court for any suit arising out of or relating to the Settlement Agreement. (Exhibit 11, Sec. 18.1.)
III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
20.
This Complaint arises out of and is related to MDL 2179 In re: Oil Spill by the Oil Rig
"Deepwater Horizon" in the Gulf of Mexico, on April 20, 2010 (the "Class Action"), which is
also pending before this Honorable Court, before the Honorable Carl J. Barbier and Magistrate
Judge Sally Shushan.
21.
This Court also has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1333 and 28
U.S.C. Sec. 1367 as a related case to the underlying Class Action for Private Economic Losses
and Property Damages. Plaintiffs herein are L.V. Marine Corporation, Natural Nine, LLC, Lady
More LLC., Quyet Pham, Nhat Van Nguyen, Thim T. Nguyen, Duy Quoc Ha, Tai Lam, Dung
Van Nguyen, Hung Van Pham, Minh Tan Vo, and David Nguyen are members of the Class
Action for Private Economic Losses and Property Damages which is under the Jurisdiction of
this Court. This action forms part of the same case or controversy as the underlying Class Action,
10
inasmuch as Watts was a member of the PSC at all relevant times and held a lead trial team
position with the PSC, and he and his co-conspirators committed malpractice, negligence, and
breached their fiduciary duty owed to members of the class.
22.
In a final judgment in MDL 2179, this Court expressly retained ongoing and exclusive
jurisdiction over the Settlement Agreement and the Seafood Fund until the termination of the
Court Supervised Settlement Program, an event that has not yet come to pass. See Doc. No.
8139. (See also Exhibit 11,Secs. 4.3.2, 5.12.1.2, 18).
23.
This Court also has jurisdiction pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005
(CAFA), 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1332, et. seq., because the amount in controversy for the proposed
class(es) is greater than $5,000,000.00 and the putative class includes thousands of individuals.
24.
Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1391, because many of the Class
defendants, Watts' and WG's co-conspirators, reside in this district, and/or because many of the
acts and omissions giving rise to this claim occurred in this District.
25.
Venue is also appropriate because this Court has retained continuing and exclusive
jurisdiction over suits and actions arising out of or related to the Settlement Agreement. (See Ex.
12, Sec. 18.1).
26.
Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1965 and 28 U.S.C.
Sec. 1391, because both Mr. Watts and the other Defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction
in this judicial district. Section 1965(b) of RICO further provides that process may be served in
any judicial district of the United States when required by the ends of justice. Courts have
held that such nationwide service of process provisions also confer personal jurisdiction over a
defendant in any judicial district as long as the defendant has minimal contacts with the United
States.
11
IV. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

27.
The Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill disaster is one of the largest mass tort scenarios in
United States history. Immediately after the precipitating event, most national mass tort
plaintiffs' firms and litigation powerhouses began to accept clients. Besides building a client
base, the ultimate goal for many major mass tort lawyers was to obtain the extremely prestigious
appointment to the Plaintiffs' Steering Committee ("PSC").
28.
After an extensive application process, during which numerous factors, including number
of clients were considered by the Honorable Carl Barbier, only two Texas attorneys were named
to the PSC, with Mikal Watts being one of them.14 A number of very well-known and
nationally recognized litigators with strong credentials and reputations for their ability, and,
most importantly, with dramatically fewer clients than Mr. Watts claimed he represented, were
not appointed to the PSC.15
29.
Mr. Watts subsequently filed over 44,510 Short-form Joinders ("SFJs") with the Court.
See (Doc. No. 3142) (Approximately 107,000 short-form joinders have been entered on the
docket, with the Watts Guerra firm accounting for 44,510 of those filings.). See also Civil No.
10-08888, captioned In Re: Oil Spill by the Oil Rig Deepwater Horizon SHORT-FORM
JOINDERS. See Civil No. 10-08888 (Doc. Nos. 676-40856, 40936-42457, 44311-46801, and
47801-52221) (the vast majority of the SFJs filed in these docket ranges were filed by Mikal

14
As stated above, in the midst of the ongoing federal investigation regarding his Deepwater Horizon client
list, Mr. Watts has since resigned from the PSC (albeit during trial). Very shortly after Mr. Watts resignation from
the PSC, Mr. Craft ceased his association with the firm previously known as Watts Guerra Craft (now known as
Watts Guerra LLP or ("WG")).
15
See Exhibit 12 -- Texas Lawyer Watts Represents 44,510 Clients in BP litigation, Louisiana Record, July
19, 2011, stating Watts represents an astonishing total of 44,510 clients preparing for the first trial over the
Deepwater Horizon explosion, according to a report U.S. District Judge Barbier received on July 6, 2011. Watts and
his firm, Watts Guerra Craft, filed that many short joinder forms in national litigation before Barbier, according to
the report. All other lawyers together filed about 62,000 Short-Form Joinders ("SFJ"), according to the report
(emphasis added). (See id.)
12
Watts and WG, however, many of these alleged clients never retained either him or his firm. See
e.g. Civil No. 10-08888, (Doc. Nos. 676-40856, 40936-42457, 44311-46801, and 47801-52221);
see also (Exhibit 11 listing 42,722 Watts' Individual/Crew Fishing SFJs) (See id.).
30.
Though Mr. Watts himself is a well-known trial lawyer, his apparent ace in the hole
was the misrepresentation to Judge Carl Barbier that he represented over forty thousand (40,000)
plaintiffs. A review of the client lists Mr. Watts and WG submitted as part of the PSC application
process reveals that a large number of these alleged clients appear to be Gulf Coast VietnameseAmericans --- far more than any other attorney claimed.16
A.
WATTS' AND WG'S TARGETING MAINLY THE VIETNAMESE
(1) Defendants indeed acted out of a class-based animus against mainly the Vietnamese class
members, who did not sign a written contingency fee agreement and a written consent to refer
agreement authorizing Mr. Watts and WG to file suit or submit claims on their behalf, but who
received the "Dear Client" Letter and whose identities were included in Mr. Watts PSC
application materials. As an example of this class, see Mr. Tam Le's Affidavit, incorporated into
and attached hereto as Exhibit 13.
31.
Moreover, consistent with the aforementioned pattern and conduct of Mr. Watts and the
other Defendants toward the Vietnamese community, similar situations with other plaintiff
attorneys with significant dockets of Vietnamese Deepwater Horizon clients soon arose, as their
own clients received correspondence from Mr. Watts and WG. These claimants, who were
otherwise represented by other attorneys received "Dear Client" letters from Defendants
instructing them not to sign documents except those received from Watts and/or WG.17 The
Dear Client letter (which was written in Vietnamese), which was mailed to each of the alleged

16
See Watts' application to serve on the PSC, exhibit 1.
17
These letters, sent to persons who were already represented by other counsel, are improper by their very
nature. If a person, (who is an attorney having an intent to obtain professional employment for himself or for
another) provides or knowingly permits to be provided, to an individual who has not sought the persons
employment, legal representation, advice or care, a written communication or solicitation, including a solicitation in
person or by telephone that . . . contains a false, fraudulent, misleading, deceptive or unfair statement or claim, such
person violates the laws.
13
Vietnamese-American clients of Mr. Watts and WG, who were actually already represented by
other attorneys, stated:18
WATTS | GUERRA | CRAFT
BP GULF OIL SPILL LITIGATION
2506 N. Port Avenue
June 14, 2010
Corpus Christi, Texas 78401
877-631-4046 or 877-389-2954 PHONE
Tam Le
24142 Ferry Landing
Denham Springs, LA 70726
RE:
BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill of Le, Tam (268303)
Dear Tam:
I am very happy that you have chosen our law firm to represent
you in the case of economic damages due to the Deepwater
Horizon Oil Spill. This letter is sent to you as our first update of
our work progress informing you of what I believe will happen to
your lawsuit in the next few months.
First, you must be careful! BP is offering minimum compensation
in exchange for your lawsuit. Do Not Sign anything from BP or
anyone else besides Watts Guerra Craft. We are your attorneys,
and we are here to help you with all aspects of your claim.
Second, after you sign this contract with our law firm, sign the tax
release form, and fill out our inquiry form, we will then enter your
information into our law firm database. We now have over 15,000
commercial fishermen, shrimpers, and boat owners in this lawsuit;
and all their information is being placed in our computer database
for backup. We are in the process of reviewing your file to ensure
that we have all the important information needed, including, but
not limited to, social security numbers and commercial fishing
licenses. We will contact you in the near future if we need

18
See a copy of this "Dear Client" Letter in Vietnamese, sent to tens of thousands of Vietnamese-American
clients of other attorneys, incorporated into and attached hereto as Exhibit 14.
14
additional information regarding your claim. It is very important

for you to provide this information for your claim.
Third, if you live in Texas, your lawsuit has been filed in the State
of Texas against BP, Transocean, and Cameron. And if you live
elsewhere, your lawsuit has been filed in the federal court against
the three defendants, as well as against Halliburton. A copy of
your file is on our website, and can be accessed at
http://masstort.wgelawfirm.com/ just by clicking on Documents
on the upper left corner under the name BP, then click on your case
number 4:10-cv-01968.
Fourth, we already submitted a copy of your file to the attorney
that is representing BP. This month, we expect to have more
discussions with them regarding the upcoming process. We intend
to engage early with BP and the other defendants.
Fifth, as cases have been filed by many different lawyers in
different jurisdictions; a motion to consolidate this lawsuit in a
MDL (Multi-District Litigation) has been filed. The consolidation
is scheduled to meet on July 29 in Boise, Idaho with the MultiDistrict Litigation Panel. I expect the consolidation will be
arranged, and most of the lawsuits filed in the federal court will be
centralized before one federal judge. Once we know where and
what court, we will engage quickly in the litigation procedures of
that court, in order to gain a leading central role in this litigation
process thereafter.
Sixth, I have served on the Plaintiffs Steering Committee (PSC)
for previous cases, and I will apply this leading role toward this
case. The plaintiffs litigation team will set up in September or
October, then we will proceed with the lawsuit and prepare for
trial.
Seventh, as I understand the devastation of this disaster will impact
thousands of lives, we intend to engage in all the settlement
discussions with BP and other defendants as soon as we can. We
will inform you, but you are the one who will determine the
settlement.
15
I am looking forward to providing you with the updated

information periodically, and I will write more information about
the plaintiffs litigation organization once it is completed. If you
have any question, please call one of our toll-free numbers: 877631-4046 or 877-389-2954. We are actively working on your case
until we can provide you a written report of the updated
information in a few months.
Thank you for your attention,
Mikal C. Watts
32.
(See Exhibit 14.) Mr. Tam Le, one of the proposed class representatives, never met Mr.
Watts or any person or representative from Mr. Watts' firm. Mr. Le never signed a contract with
Mr. Watts and thus certainly did not "changed his mind" as Mr. Watts has suggested. (See Mr.
Tam Le's Affidavit as Exhibit 13.) Mr. Le is willing to provide a handwriting sample to be
compared by a court-appointed handwriting analysis expert against whatever purported retainer
agreement and purported consent that Mr. Watts and WG allegedly have in their possession. The
same applies for all of the putative class representatives. (Id.)
33.
Furthermore, the fact that Mr. Watts and WG never represented Mr. Le, as Mr. Watts
claimed, can be demonstrated by other methods. Mr. Le is neither a deckhand nor a boat owner,
but instead is a very reputable businessman in the Vietnamese community.(Id.)
34.
Specifically, Mr. Le's corporation-- LV Marine Corp. (EIN: 72-1445573) has owned a
boat for 15 years. (Id.) The vessel registration number is 1083041. (Id.) Mr. Le's license number
is LA002614425. He resides at 24142 Ferry Harrells Landing, Denham Springs, LA 70726. (Id.)
Had Mr. Watts or the other Defendants truly represented Mr. Le as they claimed, they would
have listed LV Marine, Corp. as a plaintiff, because it is L.V. Marine, Corp. that owns the boat,
not Mr. Le. (Id.) Thus the lawsuit or claim filed with the GCCF or the DHECC must list his
corporation as the proper party plaintiff. (Id.) This raises the very reasonable inference that Mr.
16
Watts and the other Defendants, in fact, knew nothing about this claimant (other than his name
obtained from a directory). Further, this glaring omission, by such experienced lawyers as Mr.
Watts and the other Defendants, demonstrates they never met with Mr. Le; never reviewed the
specifics of his case; or had any fee contract or consent signed by an authorized representative of
L.V. Marine, Corp. when they sent Mr. Lethe Dear Client correspondence and improperly filed
a complaint under his name. (Id.)
35.
Most importantly, it is apparent from the text of the letter that no contract and/or a
consent form had been filed on behalf on Mr. Tam Le by Watts and WG. (Id.) Mr. Tam Le's
fishing boat corporation has obtained its first round of payment from the Seafood Fund. The
fishing boat corporation now has suffered harm; because BP now claims, based on
the
misconduct of Watts (as a former member of the PSC) and WG, that it was misled and thus the
second round of BP payment must be halted. The end result is BP settlement payment to Mr. Le's
boat has been delayed. (Id.)
(2). Furthermore, Defendants acted out of a class-based animus against Vietnamese
persons using the identities of the Vietnamese class members who did not sign a written
contingency fee agreement and a written consent to refer agreement authorizing Mr.
Watts and WG to file suit or submit claims on their behalf, but in whose names a
pleading and/or a short-form joinder was filed before the federal courts, the JPML, and
Judge Barbier by Mr. Watts and WG. For example, see Ms. T. Thi Nguyen's Affidavit
incorporated into and attached hereto as Exhibit 15.
36.
Ms. Thim T. Nguyen a/k/a Thim Thi Nguyen ("Ms. Nguyen"), one of the proposed class
representatives, is the only Thim T. Nguyen in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. She also is a very wellknown person in the Vietnamese-American Fishing Community in Louisiana. She never met Mr.
Watts or any person or representative from Mr. Watts' firm. (See Ms. T. Thi Nguyen's Affidavit
as Exhibit 15). Ms. Nguyen never signed a contract with Mr. Watts and thus did not later
"chang[e] her mind" as Mr. Watts has represented. (Id.)
17
37.
Furthermore, the fact that Mr. Watts and WG never represented Ms. Nguyen as Mr.
Watts claimed, can be demonstrated by other methods. Ms. Nguyen's corporation owns the boat,
she does not, and thus the corporation is the proper party plaintiff.(Id.)
38.
Ms. Nguyen is the owner of two corporations: Lady More, LLC (EIN: 74-3147922) and
Natural Nine, LLC (EIN: 83-0465766). (Id.) Her corporation Lady More, LLC has owned a boat
for 7 years, and the vessel registration number is 1106231. (Id.) Her second corporation Natural
Nine, LLC has owned a boat for 6 years, and the vessel registration number is 1042536. Ms.
Nguyen's driver's license number is LA007012352. (Id.) She resides at 9645 El Cajon Dr., Baton
Rouge, LA 70815.. (Id.) Had Mr. Watts or the other Defendants truly represented Ms. Nguyen as
they claimed, they would have listed Lady More, LLC as the proper party plaintiff. (Id.) Thus the
lawsuit or claim filed with the GCCF or the DHECC must also list her corporation as the
claimant. (Id.) Obviously, Mr. Watts and the other Defendants, in fact, knew nothing about this
claimant (other than her name obtained from a directory in Baton Rouge). Further, this glaring
omission, demonstrates that Defendants never met with Ms. Nguyen; never reviewed the
specifics of her claim, or had any fee contract or consent signed by Lady More, LLC at the time
they sent Ms. Nguyen the Dear Client correspondence and filed a complaint under her name.
(Id.)
39.
Most importantly, it is apparent from the text of the letter that no contract and/or a
consent form had been signed, but a claim had nevertheless been filed on behalf of Ms. Nguyen
by Watts and WG. (Id.)
(3). Furthermore, Defendants acted out of a class-based animus against the Vietnamese
class members who did not sign a written contingent fee agreement and a written consent
to refer agreement authorizing Mr. Watts and WG to file suit or submit claims on their
behalf, but in whose name Mr. Watts and WG presented claims to either BP, the GCCF,
the DHECC, or BP Claim Program. For example, see Dung Nguyen's Affidavit
18
40.
In addition to the "Dear Client" Letters, Mr. Watts and WG also presented claims to the
GCCFC or DHECC for the "clients" they do not represent.
Dung Van Nguyen a/k/a Dung Nguyen is a boat owner and a captain for 17 years.
His boat registration number is 1023472. His driver's license number is TX00117363. He resides
at 4185 Country Club, Dr., Dickinson, TX 77539. Dung Nguyen already retained a lawyer
representing him both before the Court and the GCCF. On September 6, 2011, Plaintiff Dung
Nguyen learned that Mr. Watts filed a claim via mail or wire with the GCCF for this Plaintiff
whom Mr. Watts and WGC did not represent. When challenged to produce the fee agreements,
these Defendants released Dung Nguyen, claiming that the filing was done so erroneously.
(See Dung Nguyen's Affidavit as Exhibit 16.) The letters sent to the GCCF and Dung Nguyen are
as follows:
September 6, 2011
VIA FAX TO 631-940-6541
Gulf Coast Claims Facility
P.O. Box 9658
Dublin, OH 43017-4958
RE: BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Litigation Claim for Nguyen,
Dung
Our File Number: 255049
GCCF Claimant ID No.
Dear Administrator,
We are in the process of having this case dismissed. Please proceed
with the claimants wishes.
Please do not hesitate to contact us at 1-800-301-2823 with any
questions or concerns.
Sincerely,
Wynter Lee
Mass Tort Coordinator
19
September 6, 2011
Via Certified Mail - Return Receipt Requested
Dung Nguyen
4185 Country Club Dr.
Dickinson, TX 77539
RE: Dismissal of Erroneously File BP Claim for Nguyen, Dung
Our file No. 255049
Dear Dung:
We are dismissing the BP claim erroneously filed on your behalf.
Occasionally, mistakes are made, but please understand that we
will work diligently to rectify the situation. We will begin the
process to dismiss your case immediately. If your lawsuits
currently pending transfer to the BP MDL, we will dismiss as soon
as such transfer is finalized.
Again, we apologize for any trouble this may have caused you, and
we will work swiftly to dismiss your case. As soon we receive a
signed order of dismissal, we will forward it to you. If you have
any questions, please feel free to contact me at 1-800-301-2823.
[Emphasis added.]
Sincerely,
Mikal C. Watts
Attorney at Law19
41.
(See id. as Exhibits 16 and the correspondences among the GCCF, Mr. Watts' firm and
Mr. Dung Nguyen as Exhibits 17 and 18.) (Emphasis added.)

(4). Furthermore, Defendants acted out of a class-based animus against Vietnamese
persons, who are already class members and who did not sign a written contingency fee
agreement and a written consent to refer agreement authorizing Mr. Watts and WG to file suit or
submit claims on their behalf, but who received a substantially similar version of the "Dear
Client" letter as set forth herein. For example, see letter of Minh Tan Vo incorporated into and
attached hereto as Exhibit 19.
42.
Plaintiffs Tam V. Le, Thim T. Nguyen, Dung Van Nguyen, Hung Van Pham, Tai Lam,
Minh Tan Vo, Quyet Pham and David Nguyen never signed any written contingency fee
agreement and/or any written consent to refer agreement authorizing Mr. Watts and WG to file

19
As stated above, the continuous misconduct of Mr. Watts tolled the statute of limitations.
20
suit or submit claims on their behalf. But they also received a substantially similar version of the
"Dear Client" letter as set forth in the attached letter sent to Minh Tan Vo incorporated hereto
and attached hereto as Exhibit 19).
(5). Furthermore, Defendants also acted out of a class-based animus against Vietnamese
individuals who did not sign a written contingent fee agreement and a written consent to
refer agreement authorizing Mr. Watts and WG to file suit or submit claims on their
behalf, but who received the DHECC's submission forms requesting that these nonclients fill out the DHECC forms, sign, and attach social security cards, driver's licenses,
and send back to Mr. Watts and WG in order to receive monetary compensation. For
example, see several Letters regarding the DHECC Forms and the Opt-out Letter sent by
Watts and WG to induce individuals who were not even fishermen incorporated into and
attached hereto as Exhibits 20, 21, and 22.
1) Mr. Watts instructed Non Clients who are not fishermen to fill
out the DHECC Registration Forms, stating: You must act
NOW in order to receive compensation for damages you have
suffered:
[email protected]
5250 Prue Road, Suite 525
San Antonio, Texas 78240
866.529.9100 PHONE
210.448.0501 FAX
www.wgclawfirm.com
July 30, 2012
Po Nghiem
1109 Mainland Dr
Texas City, TX 77590-5532
RE:
BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Litigation for Po Nghiem

Our File No.: 267161
Dear Po:
British Petroleum (BP) has offered to settle your claim as well as
others arising from the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon
exploration platform on April 20, 2010 and the consequent oil spill
21
that spread throughout the Gulf of Mexico. Preliminary approval

of a settlement order and program for those affected by the spill
has been given and is now in place. In order to move forward with
processing your claim through the Settlement Program and
receiving compensation for damages you have suffered, there are
several specific steps that must be followed.
The very first step in the settlement process is the completion of
the Registration Form that you will find attached to this letter.
(Please note that we have only included the pages that actually
have sections you need to complete.) The purpose of the
Registration Form is to indicate whether you agree to the
settlement process or desire to opt-out of the settlement process.
Without completing ALL of the information in this form, we
cannot file a claim on your behalf, you will not be able to seek any
damages for your losses now or in the future due to the BP Oil
Spill, and you run the risk of never receiving payment for your
losses.
Please complete, sign, and return or our office by August 17,
2012 the attached Registration Form. We cannot register your
claim without the completed form, which means that the
subsequent claim forms required for participation in the settlement
program cannot be submitted either.
Please complete the
following steps to ensure proper completion of your Registration
Form:
1. Complete the entire form. If you have ANY questions while
you are completing this form, please do not hesitate to call our
office toll free at 866.529.9100. Someone will be available to
answer your questions.
2. Section: 1. Preliminary Information
a. Question 1: Leave blank as we will be processing your
claim
b. Question 2: provide GCCF Claimant Number if you have
filed a claim; otherwise, leave blank.
c. Question 3: Leave blank unless you want to Opt-Out of the
Settlement Process. We recommend that you DO NOT
opt-out
3. Section 2. Claimant Information A. Individual Claimant
Information
a. Questions 1, 3, 4, and 5-8: We must have all of your
accurate contact information. If we need to contact you
throughout this claims process, we must be able to reach
22
you in a timely manner. Please make sure to provide the

best way to contact you at any time by including your
current address, phone number and email, if applicable.
Also, if there are any changes to your contact information
throughout the claims process, please contact our office
IMMEDIATELY. If we are unable to reach you, we may
not be able to complete the processing of your claim.
Additionally, please provide date of birth and any other
name(s) that you use or are known by.
b. Question 2: in order to file this Registration Form, we
MUST have your Social Security Number or Individual
Taxpayer Identification Number. Without one of these, we
will not be able to file a claim on your behalf and hence
you may not be able to ever receive compensation for your
losses. Be sure to provide the ENTIRE number, not just
the last four digits. We cannot and will not process this
form without the full nine-digit number.
c. Questions 9 and 10: You MUST answer honestly and
fully. If you are married, we MUST have the information
requested. Your spouse will become a part of the claims
process down the road, and if we do not have this
information, it may delay or put a stop to your claim being
processed.
4. Sections 3-8 (not included in the attached). Will be filled
out by our law firm as it pertains to Law Firm information,
lawsuit information, claims information, etc.
5. Section 9 (not included in the attached). Required
Documentation
a. YOU MUST INCLUDE COPIES OF TWO OF
THE FOLLOWING: DRIVERS LICENSE,
GOVERNMENT ISSUED ID CARD, SOCIAL
SECURITY CARD, PASSPORT, WORKERS
VISA, RESIDENT ALIEN CARD OR A
CERTIFIED COPY OF YOUR BIRTH
CERTIFICATE. Without two forms of
identification, we cannot move forward with
processing your claim.
6. Section 10 and 11. Signature- You must sign and date this
Registration Form. Please also legibly print your name.
Once you have completed and signed the Registration Form,
returning it to our office promptly is of the utmost importance. As
23
previously mentioned, the registration process is the first of many

steps to be completed during the claims process, and the claims
process cannot begin until the completed and signed Registration
Form is returned to us. Even though we have until November 1,
2012 to complete the claims process, we need the Registration
Form by August 17th to ensure timely submission of your complete
claim. If the claims process is not completed, it is very likely that
you will not be able to receive compensation for any of your losses
due to the BP Oil Spill Disaster. Please note that once we receive
the completed Registration Form, we will send you a detailed
claim packet regarding the next steps in the claims process.
Please return your completed and signed Registration Form as
well as copies of two forms of identification by August 17, 2012
to our office:
Watts Guerra Craft
San Antonio, TX 78240
Thank you for your cooperation and patience as we work to settle
your claim. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to
contact our office toll free at 866.529.9100. we look forward to
continuing to work diligently on your behalf throughout this
process.
Best regards,
Mikal Watts
2) Mr. Watts sent out Opt Out Letter to non-clients who are not
fishermen:
[email protected]
866.529.9100 PHONE
210.448.0501 FAX
www.wgclawfirm.com
November 1, 2012
Po Nghiem
1109 Mainland Dr
24
Texas City, TX 77590-5532

RE:
BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Litigation for Po Nghiem

Our File Number: 397533
Letter ID: Redacted
British Petroleum (BP) has offered to settle your claim.
You must act NOW in order to receive compensation for
damages you have suffered.
Deadlines are approaching
Dear Po:
This letter is to inform you that previous correspondence mailed on
October 15th 2012 detailed instructions regarding Opting-Out of
the BP Deepwater Horizon Settlement Program. As we have not
yet received your Registration Form, or any correspondence
indicating that you would like to Opt-Out of the Deepwater
Horizon settlement Program, we are now assuming that you are
choosing to Opt-In to the settlement, the Opt Out deadline has now
passed.
In order to move forward with your case and Registration in the
Deepwater Horizon Settlement Program, we MUST have a
completed Registration Form by November 14, 2012. Please note
that the Registration Form is only the first step in the settlement
claim process. We must submit your completed Registration
Form, Claim Form (to be sent after return of the Registration
Form), and supporting documentation thirty (30) days after the
Fairness Hearing for the Final Approval of the Settlement
Program, or roughly December 8, 2012; however, even though we
have until December 8, 2012 to complete the claims process, we
need the Registration Form by November 14th to ensure timely
submission of your COMPLETE claim. Please note that once we
receive the completed Registration Form, we will send you a
detailed claim packet regarding the next steps in the claim process.
Without a completed Registration Packet and supporting
documentation, we will not be able to move forward with
processing your claim. If we are unable to file a Registration form
on your behalf on or before November 14, 2012 there is a
possibility you may not be able to collect any compensation for
you losses arising out of the Deepwater Horizon disaster.
25
Please return your completed Registration Form to our office

immediately.
contact our office toll free at 800.301.2823. We look forward to
process.
Best regards,
3) Mr. Watts sent hundreds of thousands of letters instructing Non Clients to fill
out the DHECC Forms. For example, he sent DHCCs Forms to Non-Clients as
shown below. This person was not a fisherman and moved out of Texas years
ago.
[email protected]
866.529.9100 PHONE
210.448.0501 FAX
www.wgclawfirm.com
December 28, 2012
Redacted Name
Redacted Address
Redacted Address
RE: BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Litigation for Redacted
Name
Redacted Letter ID
British Petroleum (BP) has offered to settle your claim.
You must act NOW in order to receive compensation for
damages you have suffered.
Deadlines are approaching
Dear RedactedName:
As you are aware, BP has offered to settle your claim as well as
others arising from the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon
exploration platform on April 20, 2010 and the consequent oil spill
that spread throughout the Gulf of Mexico. In correspondence
26
dated July 30, 2012, we outlined several steps that you needed to
complete by August 17, 2012 in order to move forward with the
processing of your BP settlement claim. Over the last five months
we have mailed four letters regarding deadlines, as well as two
copies of the Registration Form Letter. We have called and left
messages regarding deadlines for Claims filing weekly since
October. Final deadlines are here. To date, we have not received
your completed Registration Form or Claim and supporting
documentation. In addition to the settlement claim process, you
must make Presentment under the Oil Pollution Act for your
Short Form Joinder, lawsuit or other claim to be valid. At this
point, you are not eligible for the BP settlement.
In addition to the deadlines weve given to you regarding your
settlement claim, you must make Presentment by January 18,
2013. BP will likely take the position that the Statute of
Limitations will run on April 20, 2013 and it can take up to 90
days for the claim to be presented before the statute runs.
Presentment generally requires: (i) a demand for a sum certain
(total dollar amount claimed), with (ii) a written description of the
claim, and (iii) supporting documentation of the losses. If you
submit a settlement claim to the Court-Supervised Settlement
Program, you do not have to make separate presentment of such
claims. You should likely, however, out of an abundance of
caution, make separate presentment of any Expressly Reserved
Claims. January 18, 2013 is a FINAL DEADLINE- no
extensions will be given if you do not satisfy the requirements
of presentment or file a claim by this time. We may not be able
to recover anything on behalf of your claim if these
requirements are not satisfied. (Please see the attached letter
from the Plaintiff Steering Committee regarding Presentment.)
To be clear, at this time, we cannot submit a settlement claim or
make Presentment on your behalf. This means that you will NOT
be entitled to receive any monetary compensation now or in the
future from BP in regards to damages from your losses arising
from the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon exploration platform
on April 20, 2010 and the consequent oil spill that spread
throughout the Gulf of Mexico.
It is imperative that you return the completed and signed
Registration and Claim Forms AND all supporting
documentation to our office before January 18, 2013. See the
previous letters for the Registration Form and details on the
27
necessary documentation. You have two weeks to provide this

information so that we can move forward with Presentment
and Claims filing on your behalf. You may return your
documentation to our offices via mail to 5250 Prue Road Suite
525 San Antonio, TX 78240; email at [email protected] or
fax at 210-448-0501
contact our office toll free at 800.301.2823. We look forward to
process.
Best regards,
Mikal Watts
B. THE REACTION OF THE VIETNAMESE FISHING COMMUNITY AND MR.
WATTS' DELAY TACTICS
43.
The Gulf Coast Vietnamese Community and the Churches were shocked to learn of Mr.
Watts action. (See Affidavit of Rev. Joseph HD Vu, President of Domus Dei Clerical Society of
Apostolic Life of the United States who is also Chaplain in the United States Air Force and
Sworn Statement of Pastor Sharon Gartment incorporated into and attached hereto as Exhibit 23
and 23 B.) Communications were directed to Mr. Watts about this issue, yet, Mr. Watts insisted
that Tam Le, Theresa T. Nguyen, Lien Nguyen, Dung Van Nguyen, and many other Vietnamese
claimants were his and his firm's clients and that they had signed retainer agreements, yet later
had a change of heart. Upon such representations, Mr. Watts was requested to provide the
retainer agreements signed by those specific clients to whom Watts had sent the contested "Dear
Client" letters.20Mr. Watts gave assurances that he would provide the claimants with copies of
these signed retainers, but he has failed to do so.

20
The inquiry was for the purpose of utilizing a handwriting expert to determine whether the signatures on
Watts alleged contracts were genuine, because the clients claimed not to have signed any contract with him or even
to have ever heard of him.
28
44.
Upon information and belief, Mr. Watts continued making assurances that (1) he and WG
had every single signed retainer agreement and consent to refer agreement for each of the clients
whom he listed or to whom he sent a letter; (2) that it was, in fact, the clients who are now
reneging on the contracts and signing different retainer fee agreements with different
lawyers.(Id.); and (3) that lack of communication was the reason for the confusion. Concerned
for what may be occurring to unsuspecting members of their community, some Vietnamese
community members offered to help mend the alleged communication problem between Mr.
Watts and WG and their alleged Vietnamese clients. Mr. Watts then claimed that he was a victim
of the pro-BP media and newspapers, because BP paid the major newspapers, and that the major
newspapers were bought because so much money in advertising was paid. However, the
uncontested fact is that Defendants have never produced a signed retainer agreement or a consent
to refer agreement related to any of the class representatives or any members of the putative
class.
45.
Mr. Watts also continuously represented that he relied almost exclusively on referring
lawyers to obtain his purported Vietnamese client. Mr. Watts represented to many people, that
his referral attorneys had represented to him that they had written, signed contingent fee
contracts and written consents for all of the challenged Vietnamese claimants.21 But when
requested to present the challenged clients' written consents, authorizing the unidentified
referring attorneys to share fees with Mr. Watts and WG, as required by the Rules of
Professional Conduct: Rule 1.04 (f) (2) (Texas);Rule 1.05 (e) (Louisiana), Rule 1.05(e)
21
Under Rule 1.04(f) (2) of the Texas Rules of Professional Conduct, as Texas lawyers, Watts and his Firm
WG are obligated to have and review written consents signed by the clients to authorize them and the referral
lawyers to share the responsibility and share fees.
29
(Mississippi); Rule 1.05(e) (Alabama); Rule 4-1.5(f)(2) (Florida);and Rule 1.05 (e) (Georgia),
Mr. Watts has failed to produce a single written consent.22
46.
As the investigation by the Department of Justice and the raid by the Secret Service
Agents developed, it became clear to members of the Vietnamese community that their identities
were misappropriated by Defendants (particularly tens of thousands of Vietnamese fishermen). It
also became clear that Mr. Watts made such misrepresentations mentioned in Paragraphs 45 and
46, above, in an effort to lull the Vietnamese plaintiffs. 23 As such, Mr. Watts' and WG's
continuous misrepresentations interrupted or suspended prescription.
47.
Mr. Watts misrepresented in his attached PSC application and the attached pleadings that
he and WG represented over 40,000 Plaintiffs, including tens of thousands of VietnameseAmericans. However, upon information and belief, Mr. Watts and WG employed no Vietnamese

22
Texas Rule 1.04(f)(1)(2) of the Texas Rules of Professional Conduct (are similar to Rule 1.05 (e)
(Louisiana), Rule 1.05(e) (Mississippi); Rule 1.05(e) (Alabama); Rule 4-1.5(f)(2) (Florida); Rule 1.05 (e) (Georgia);
and Rule 1.05 (e) (South Carolina)) requires:
A division or arrangement for division of a fee between lawyers who are not in the same firm
may be made only if:
(1) the division is:
(i) in proportion to the professional services performed by each lawyer; or
(ii) made between lawyers who assume joint responsibility for the representation; and
(2) the client consents in writing to the terms of the arrangement prior to the time of
the association or referral proposed, including
(i) the identity of all lawyers or law firms who will participate in the fee-sharing arrangement, and
(ii) whether fees will be divided based on the proportion of services performed or by lawyers
agreeing to assume joint responsibility for the representation, and
(iii) the share of the fee that each lawyer or law firm will receive or, if the division is based on the
proportion of services performed, the basis on which the division will be made; and
(3) the aggregate fee does not violate Paragraph (a) (emphasis added).
23
See for representative example a true and correct copy of Watts' Letter is incorporated into and attached
hereto as Exhibit 24.
30
lawyers during the relevant time frame.
They employed only one part-time Vietnamese-
speaking worker (who is a student at Trinity University and whose parents are living in Houston)
to allegedly service tens of thousands of Vietnamese clients, the majority for whom English is a
second language.
The Department of Justice's investigation appears to be focused on the
existence or non-existence of client retainer agreements (and other discrepancies) related to this
background.24 On December 17, 2013, BP filed a lawsuit, alleging that it was misled.
C.
BP WAS NOT MISLED AND THUS COULD NOT HAVE REASONABLY
RELIED ON THE "WATTS INDIVIDUAL/CREW FISHING SFJS" AS A FACTOR TO
DETERMINE THE SETTLEMENT AMOUNT FOR THE SEAFOOD FUND
48.
As indicated above, before settlement negotiations ever began between BP's lawyers and
class counsel, on April 18, 2011, The New York Times published an article revealing the
discrepancies regarding Mr. Watts alleged Vietnamese client base. A true and correct copy of
this article is attached above as Exhibit 6. The Times article reported that: People familiar with
the claims process said almost every submission was listed as a deckhand with identical
earnings. The fund [GCCF] demanded further documentation."25Apparently what the GCCF's
administrator/BP had repeatedly sought, but which Mr. Watts and WG repeatedly refused and
could not provide, were retainer agreements (a/k/a attorney engagement letters and/or consents
signed by each client for whom Mr. Watts and WG had submitted a claim to the GCCF).
49.
As Mr. Watts and WG began sending tens of thousands of Plaintiff Profile Forms on
behalf of their alleged crew members to the GCCF, its lawyer sent out letters to BPs lawyers,
reporting that only two claimants listed Watts and WG as their lawyers.

24
See a copy of an AP article documented in the Houston Chronicle's March 14, 2013 online issue,
25
See Exhibit 6 --The Times article.
31
50.
Specifically, in one instance, on April 26, 2011, via regular U.S. mail and email,
Goodwin Proctor, GCCF's attorney, sent notice to all defense and plaintiff counsel, including
BP's counsel, that stated:
Dear Counsel:
As you know, we represent Kenneth R. Feinberg in his capacity as Administrator of the
Gulf Coast Claim Facility (the "GCCF"). . . . This letter is to advise you that the GCCF is
today making available additional documents in accordance with additional PPFs
[Plaintiff Profile Forms] it has received.
*****
With respect to the 40,002 PPFs provided by the law firm of Watts Guerra Craft LLP
(Watts Guerra), the GCCF is making available for review today documents relating to
only one claimant who submitted two claims. Within the universe of 40,002 PPFs
provided by Watts Guerra, 297 were duplicates or otherwise overlapped. Of the 39,705
non-duplicate names, the GCCF has no knowledge at all with respect to claims or
potential claims by 12,834. With respect to the remaining 26,871 non-duplicate names,
Watts Guerra conducted an electronic date transfer to the GCCF of information
required by the GCCF claim forms for 25,494, along for some supporting documentation
for 203 of these potential claims; however, Watts Guerra did not complete the claims
submission process with respect to any of the 25,494 potential claims, and thus they
never been submitted to the GCCF for processing. The remaining 1,377 non duplicate
names match claims that have been filed with the GFECC that either are being processed
or have been processed; however, only two of these 1,377 claimants listed Watts Guerra
as their attorneys on their claim forms, and only one signed the claim forms. It is with
respect to this lone claimant that documents are being made available today. With respect
to the other 1,375 names, 287 listed an attorney or firm other than Watts Guerra on the
claim form, and the GCCF accordingly cannot follow instructions from Watts Guerra to
release their information. With respect to the remaining 1,088, Watts and Guerra
indicated that it would provide the GCCF with attorney engagement letters signed by the
claimants evidencing the firm's representations but none of the engagement letters
provided to date by Watts Guerra to the GCCF relate to the claimants and include a
valid client signature.
.
51.
(See Letter of Mr. David B. Pitofsky of Goodwin Proctor, attorneys of Mr. Kenneth
Feinberg, sent to all defense and plaintiff counsel, including BPs counsel, incorporated into and
attached hereto as Exhibit 26). (Emphasis added). On April 26, 2011, the evidence was so clear
to BP that: out of 40,002 Plaintiff Profile Forms submitted by Watts and WG to the
GCCF;12,834 were invalid; 25,494 claim forms with names transferred to the GCCF were also
32
invalid, because "Watts Guerra did not complete the claims submission process with respect to
any of the 25,494 potential claims, . . . they never been submitted to the GCCF for processing."
(Id.) (Emphasis added.). As to the remaining 1,377 alleged clients, 287 were clients of other
firms; and as to the remaining 1,088 names, Watts and WG had no engagement letters.(Id.)
Two claimants listed Watts and WG as their attorneys on the claim forms, but only ONE signed
the claim form. (Id.) This revelation should have put BP on notice that Defendants
representations were not possibly true concerning the number of claimants they purported to
represent.
52.
BP knew or should have known that Watts and WG's claim they represented "42,722
Watts' Individual/Crew Fishing SFJs" were invalid. Yet it now alleges that it reasonably relied on
the number of "42,722 Watts' Individual/Crew Fishing SFJs" as a critical factor in determining
the overall compensation amount for the Seafood Fund. It also contends that had it known at that
time that this number was fictitious, it would not have agreed to pay $2.3 billion into the Fund.
This could not be true considering the GCCFs lawyers correspondence to BP's lawyers and all
counsel of the records clearly refuted this alleged reasonable reliance alleged by BP.
53.
Therefore, one can logically conclude that BP already knew that Mr. Watts' claim that he
represented over 40,000 deckhands was false. However, BP either: 1) strategically wanted to set
a trap for Watts, WG, and their co-conspirators so that it could later get out of its contractual
obligation; 2) chose to look away and proceeded with the settlement negotiation due to the
insurmountable pressures from all directions that it had to endure during that time; or 3)
negligently failed to request Watts to produce over 44,000 fee retainers and consents.
54.
BP could have, at any time, requested Mr. Watts to produce the fee retainers and/or
written consents of 42,722 Watts' Individual/Crew members before it accepted this number as a
33
"factor" to determine the compensation amount for the Seafood Fund, before it agreed to include
this "factor" in the Settlement Agreement.
55.
BP, via its lawyers, knew or should have known that in the event that every single case at
issue was referred to Watts and WG, these defendants had an ethical obligation in a contingent
fee case under virtually all state bar rules, to have in their possession a written consent signed by
such client.
56.
Additionally, as mentioned above and as reported in the Times article, there were
significant discrepancies involving Vietnamese individuals whom Mr. Watts claimed to

represent, but who denied they were represented (or had ever been represented) by him or his
Firm WG.26 Thus, it is unjustifiable for BP today to say that in entering into the Settlement
Agreement, it truly relied on Watts' number of "clients" as a factor, when BP's lawyers and the
GCCF had been questioning the validity of such a number all along.

26
(See Exibit 6). As noted in the Introduction regarding the Rivas (filing suit without a contract) matter, Mr.
Watts is no stranger to controversy. A brief sample of documented past incidents where the behavior and client
generating tactics have appeared to be at odds with the behavior expected of a reasonably prudent attorney include:
Failing to disclose for five months that his client, a quadriplegic after an accident, died during
settlement talks with Ford, according to the Caller-Times. A federal judge (U.S. Dist. Ct. in West
Virginia) censured Mr. Watts for the 2005 incident, but allowed Mr. Watts to stay on the case over the
objection of Ford (see Exhibit 27);
Sending a letter to opposing counsel in a suit in which he detailed his political contributions to the
justices sitting on the Appellate Court in Corpus Christi. The letter raised questions over whether he
was using his political contributions and influence as leverage in ongoing litigation (see Exhibit 28);
Documented ties to convicted attorney impersonator and case runner Mauricio Celis (CGT Law
Group) via receiving case referrals from him as documented in the criminal case (see Exhibit 29);
Implication in a case where Ford claimed a jury in Crystal City was tainted before delivering a $28
million verdict against the company in 2005. The towns city manager, who was dating a local lawyer
that helped sign up the case for him, served on the jury but didnt disclose her relation to the case. That
local lawyer had referred the case to Mr. Watts, who later won his argument against a new trial when
two jurors recanted their statements that the city manager influenced their decision (see Exhibit 30);
and
Documented ties to South Texas case runner Willie Garcia (Hidalgo County criminal case (see Exhibit
31).
34
57.
Furthermore,
"[T]he notion that the number of deckhands was the driving factor during negotiations in
determining the overall amount is absurd, and that just $130 million was allocated to
deckhands. . . ." BPs overreaching attempt to hold the entire seafood program hostage
is part of its continuing effort to rewrite history and the settlement agreement, . . ..27
58.
The facts do not support BPs claim that it was misled. Nor could its alleged reliance be
reasonable and/or justified. The ones that were truly misled, or at least were negligently misled
are: the federal courts, the media, the general public, and the class members -- hardworking men
and women of the seafood industry whose livelihoods were destroyed by BPs reckless conduct
and whose lives now were crushed by the misconduct of Mr. Watts, their very own class counsel
and trial counsel.
C. THE REALITY OF THE BP LAWSUIT AND WATTS' ACTION
59.
That BP's alleged reliance is unjustifiable, however, does not help many fishermen at this
time. The reality of BP's lawsuit is that these fishermen will realize a significant delay before
they receive payments from the Fund.
60.
First, the District Judge will likely deny BP's request for an injunction. Second, the 5th
Circuit may likely agree with BP and grant the requested injunction to stop the second round of
payments to fishermen in February of 2014, as the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled in
BPs favor twice already on issues concerning the business economic loss claims. Then the
District Court will invite the parties to submit briefs. Then the District Court will rule. Then BP
will appeal to the 5th Circuit again. In the meantime, the DHECC stops paying the class
representatives claims. Third, the BP lawsuit will greatly delay the rightful payments to the
fishermen who are entitled to these payments. In fact, the BP lawsuit against Mr. Watts is
extremely devastating to many fishermen.
Many fishermen have been on the verge of

27
The New York Times on December 18, 2013, titled BP Accuses Texas Lawyer of Brazen Fraud in
Workers Claims Over Gulf Oil Spill. (Exhibit 32.)
35
bankruptcy. In addition, the harvest has been really bad. After a few years, now the dispersants,
namely Corexit 9500 and9527, that BP used to clean the oil spill in 2010, has had a deadly effect
on the aquatic life and sea creatures.28The fishermen have relied on these second round payments

28
See David Kirby, Corexit, Oil Dispersant Used By BP, Is Destroying Gulf Marine Life, Scientists Say.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/25/corexit-bp-oil-dispersant_n_3157080.html
Three years ago, when BPs Deepwater Horizon began leaking some 210 million gallons of
Louisiana Crude into the Gulf of Mexico, the U.S. government allowed the company to apply
chemical dispersants to the blossoming oil slick to prevent toxic gunk from reaching the fragile bays,
beaches, and mangroves of the coast, where so much marine life originates. But a number of recent studies
show that BP and the feds may have made a huge mistake, for which everything from microscopic
organisms to bottlenose dolphins are now paying the highest price.
After the spill, BP secured about a third of the worlds supply of dispersants, namely Corexit9500 and
9527, according to The New York Times. Of the two, 9527 is more toxic. Corexit dispersants emulsify oil
into tiny beads, causing them to sink toward the bottom. Wave action and wind turbulence degrade the oil
further, and evaporation concentrates the toxins in the oil-Corexit mixture, including dangerous compounds
called polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), known to cause cancer and developmental [injuries .BP
began spraying the Gulf, and critics cried foul. They said Corexit is not only toxic to marine life on its
own, but when combined with crude oil, the mixture becomes several times more toxic than oil or
dispersant alone.
Not surprisingly, BP Chief Executive Bob Dudley defended use of the dispersant. The toxicity of Corexit
is about the same as dish soap, which is effectively what it is and how it works, he told stockholders.In
hindsight no one believes that that was the wrong thing and it would have been much worse without the use
of it. I do not believe anybodyanybody with almost common sensewould say waves of black oil
washing into the marshes and beaches would have been a better thing, under any circumstances.
BP says that Corexit is harmless to marine life , while the Environmental Protection Agency has waffled,
saying both that long term effects [of dispersants] on aquatic life are unknown and that data do not
indicate any significant effects on aquatic life. Moreover, decreased size of the oil droplets is a good
indication that, so far, the dispersant is effective.
But many scientists, such as Dr. William Sawyer, a Louisiana toxicologist, argue that Corexit can be
deadly to people and sea creatures alike. Corexit components are also known as deodorized
kerosene, Sawyer said in a written statement for the Gulf Oil Disaster Recovery Group, a legal
consortium representing environmental groups and individuals affected by the Deepwater Horizon spill.
With respect to marine toxicity and potential human health risks, studies of
kerosene
exposures strongly indicate potential health risks to volunteers, workers, sea turtles, dolphins,
breathing reptiles and all species which need to surface for air exchanges, as well as birds and all other
mammals. When Corexit mixes with and breaks down crude, it makes the oil far more bioavailable to
plants and animals, critics allege, because it is more easily absorbed in its emulsified state.
Sawyer tested edible fish and shellfish from the Gulf for absorption of petroleum hydrocarbon (PHC),
believed to have been facilitated by Corexit. Tissue samples taken prior to the accident had no
measurable PHC. But after the oil spill, Sawyer found tissue concentrations up to 10,000 parts per million,
36
to be paid in February of 2014 as contracted and promised by BP. Specifically, the second round
of payment was supposed to be recommended by Seafood Neutral in January, 2014, to Judge
Barbier, to be distributed in late February 2014. Although Judge Barbier has not ruled yet on
BP's injunction request, the second round of payments undoubtedly will be halted, and even the
first round payments to many fishermen will, as a practical matter, be delayed by the DHECC in
light of the BP Lawsuit. For example, since the 5th Circuits October 2 and December 2, 2014,
rulings on the issues concerning the matching issues and causation for the business economic
loss (BEL) claims, even the first round of seafood claim payments which have nothing to do with
the BEL appeal process have been delayed. Since October 2, 2013, the DHECC has been very
concerned about being criticized and has paid very little to seafood claimants.
V. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATION
61.
Plaintiffs bring this action on their own behalf, and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated ("the Classes"). Specifically, Plaintiffs seek to represent three putative classes:
A. Class 1: All persons who are members of the Class Action for Private Economic Losses and
Property Damages and whose identities were misappropriated by Defendants.
62.
Under Class 1, Plaintiffs Tam V. Le, Thim T. Nguyen, Dung Van Nguyen, Hung Van
Pham, Tai Lam, Minh Tan Vo, and David Nguyen, are already class members of the Class
Action for Private Economic Losses and Property Damages.
63.
Specifically, under Class 1, Plaintiffs seek to represent: (1) those individuals and entities
who are already class members and who did not sign a written contingency fee agreement and a
written consent to refer agreement authorizing Mr. Watts and WG to file suit or submit claims on
their behalf, but who received the "Dear Client" Letter and whose identities were included in Mr.
or 1 percent of the total. The study, he said, 'shows that the absorption [of the oil] was enhanced by the
Corexit.
37
Watts PSC application materials; (2) those individuals and entities who are already class
members and who did not sign a written contingency fee agreement and a written consent to
refer agreement authorizing Mr. Watts and WG to file suit or submit claims on their behalf, but
in whose name a pleading and/or a short-form joinder was filed in federal court or the JPML by
Mr. Watts and WG; (3) those individuals and entities who are already class members and who
did not sign a written contingency fee agreement and a written consent to refer agreement
authorizing Mr. Watts and WG to file suit or submit claims on their behalf, but in whose name
Mr. Watts and WG presented claims to either BP, the GCCF, the DHECC, or BP Claim
Program; (4) those individuals and entities who are already class members and who did not sign
a written contingency fee agreement and a written consent to refer agreement authorizing Mr.
Watts and WG to file suit or submit claims on their behalf, but who received a substantially
similar version of the "Dear Client" letter as set forth herein; and (5) those individuals and
entities and who did not sign a written contingency fee agreement and a written consent to refer
agreement authorizing Mr. Watts and WG to file suit or submit claims on their behalf, but who
received the DHECC's submission forms requesting that these non-clients fill out the DHECC
forms, sign, and attach income tax returns, and send back to Mr. Watts and WG in order to
receive monetary compensation.
B. Class 2 consists of: Plaintiffs represented by L.V. Marine Corporation, Natural Nine LLC,
Lady More LLC, Quyet Pham, Nhat Van Nguyen, and Duy Quoc Ha who are appearing
individually and as representatives of thousands of fishermen (boat owners, captains, and crew
Members) who are members of the Class Action for Private Economic Losses and Property
Damages under the Seafood Program, and who have been and will be severely injured by
Defendants' misconduct, because their payments from the Seafood Settlement Fund, which was
38
supposed to be recommended and distributed in late February or March of 2014 by Seafood

Neutral and the DHECC, have been requested to be suspended by BP.29
C. Class 3 consists of: Plaintiffs Lee Nguyen, Lisa Nguyen, and Lien Nguyen, Thanh -Linh Vu
Nguyen, Theresa T. Nguyen, and Thinh T. Nguyen who appear individually and as
representatives of the proposed class(es) of non-members of the Class Action for Private
Economic Losses and Property Damages, and whose identities were misappropriated by
Defendants.
64.
Under Class 3, the non-class members are: (1) those individuals and entities who did not
sign a written contingency fee agreement and a written consent to refer agreement authorizing
Mr. Watts and WG to file suit or submit claims on their behalf, but whose identities were
included in Mr. Watts PSC application materials; (2) those individuals and entities who did not
Mr. Watts and WG to file suit or submit claims on their behalf, but in whose name a pleading
and/or a short-form joinder was filed in a federal court or the JPML by Mr. Watts and WG; (3)
those individuals and entities who did not sign a written contingency fee agreement and a written
consent to refer agreement authorizing Mr. Watts and WG to file suit or submit claims on their
behalf, but in whose name Mr. Watts and WG presented claims to either BP, the GCCF, the
DHECC, or BP Claim Program; (4) those individuals and entities who did not sign a written
contingency fee agreement and a written consent to refer agreement authorizing Mr. Watts and
WG to file suit or submit claims on their behalf, but who received a substantially similar version
of the "Dear Client" letter as set forth herein; and (5) those individuals and entities who did not

29
The value of these plaintiffs' second round payments will be deducted from the undersigned attorneys' fees and are
to be reserved for this class of Plaintiffs and their counsel who have assisted them in filing claims with the DHECC.
39
Mr. Watts and WG to file suit or submit claims on their behalf, but who received the DHECC's
submission forms requesting that these non-clients fill out and return to Defendants the DHECC
forms, sign, and attach income tax returns, in order to receive monetary compensation.
VI. EXCLUSION
65.
The proposed class(es) excludes (1) any individual or entity that directly retained Mr.
Watts, Mr. Guerra, Mr. Craft or any attorney employed by WG and who signed a written
contingency fee agreement authorizing suits be filed on their behalf by said attorneys; and (2)
any individual or entity that was, with their knowledge and consent, referred by a licensed
attorney to Mr. Watts, Mr. Guerra, Mr. Craft or any attorney employed by WG and who signed
both a written contingency fee agreement and written consent to refer authorizing Mr. Watts or
WG to file suit or assert claims on their behalf.
66.
The members of the Classes are so numerous that the joiner of all members is
impractical. While the exact number of class members is unknown to Plaintiffs at this time, the
Class is estimated to be in the tens of thousands.
67.
There are common questions of fact and law common to the Classes as all members of
the Classes were subject to the same misappropriation of identities committed by Defendants,
under the same factual circumstances. Common questions of law include those listed below. The
claims of the Plaintiffs are typical of those of the members of the Classes because Plaintiffs
suffered the same harms, and therefore have the same claims. Plaintiffs and their counsel will
fairly and adequately represent the members of the Classes because Plaintiffs are committed to
this litigation, have no conflicts of interest, and have retained counsel with experience in class
action litigation.
68.
Given the immense size of the Classes and the overwhelming predominance of common
factual issues, class adjudication of this matter is clearly preferred.

40
69.
Plaintiff anticipates no difficulty in the management of this litigation as a class action and
the Class is readily definable. Prosecution as class action will eliminate the possibility of
repetitious litigation while also providing redress for claims that may be too small to support the
expense of individual, complex litigation.
70.
For these reasons, a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and
efficient adjudication of this controversy. Certification, therefore, is appropriate under Rule

23(b)(1) or (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
VII. CIVIL RICO SECTION 1962 (c) CLAIM
71.
Plaintiffs adopt each paragraph set forth above as if fully set forth herein.
72.
Plaintiffs assert Watts, WG, and their co-conspirators violated the Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act. 18 U.S.C. Section 1964(a) establishes jurisdiction in district
courts of the United States to restrain violations of Section 1962 (c). Section 1962(c) provides as
follows:
73.
It shall be unlawful for any person employed by or associated with any enterprise
engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce, to conduct or
participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise's affairs through a pattern of
racketeering activity or collection of unlawful debt.
74.
Section 1962(c) requires Plaintiffs to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Mr.
Watts managed the affairs of an enterprise or association-in-fact enterprise (here WG and its
successor firms) to commit a pattern of racketeering activity. Thus, "[t]he two crucial elements
which [must be] prove[n] to sustain a conviction under Section 1962 (c) are the defendants'
association with an `enterprise' and the existence of a `pattern of racketeering activity.'" United
States v. Morris, 532 F.2d 436, 441 (5th Cir. 1976). In the instant case, through the facts stated
41
above, Plaintiffs have adequately demonstrated that Defendants are associated with an
"enterprise" as defined under Section 1961(4).
75.
Plaintiffs have also established that there was in this case a "pattern of racketeering
activity" within the meaning of RICO. Under Section 1961(5) there must be at least two acts of
racketeering activity, occurring within ten years of each other, in order for there to be a pattern of
such activity. See Factual Background, supraWatts, WG and their co-conspirators' pattern of
such misappropriation identities from other cases.
76.
"Racketeering activity" is defined in Section 1961(1). It includes four broad categories of
crimes, among them are: (A) any of several specified acts or threats not specifically alleged
herein, and (B) any act which is indictable under several specified sections of title 18 U.S.C.
See18 U.S.C. Section 1961(1).
77.
Under Section 1962(c), among other remedies, the civil Plaintiffs may recover triple
damages for injury by reason of a violation of Sections 1962(a), (b), (c) or (d).
78.
This Count is against Mr. Watts and the other Defendants, individually, and WG.
79.
Mr. Watts and the other Defendants, individually, and WG, as set forth herein, are
engaged in the multi-state practice of law; and their individual and enterprise activities affect
interstate commerce.
80.
Mr. Watts and the other Defendants, individually, and WG agreed to and did conduct and
participate in the conduct of the enterprises affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity and
for the unlawful purpose of defrauding the class of plaintiffs (by obtaining a position on the PSC
to avail himself of the fees associated therewith, thus rendering millions of dollars in fees
unavailable for settlement purposes to members of the class). This is consistent with Mr. Watts
and the other Defendants established pattern of behavior, as described above in instances such
42
as the Rivas matter and others, of placing his and their individual and enterprise financial
interests above the best interests of the clients and the profession and rule of law.
81.
Pursuant to the purpose of their racketeering activities, Mr. Watts and the other
Defendants, individually, and WG committed multiple related predicate acts of mail and wire
fraud with regard to the putative class representatives, including but not limited to the following:
On or about June 14 and/or July 27,2010, via regular mail sent by the U.S. Post
Office, each of the Vietnamese Plaintiffs Tam V. Le, Thim T. Nguyen, Minh Tan Vo, Dung Van
Nguyen, Lisa Nguyen, Lee Van Nguyen, Thanh-Linh Vu Nguyen, and Lien Nguyen received a
"Dear Client" letter signed by Mikal Watts. These Plaintiffs, in fact, never met nor signed any
fee contract with Watts or any of his referral lawyers. Each "Dear Client" letter that each Plaintiff
received had the same content as the "Dear Client" letter sent to Tam Le described above sent to
Tam Le on June 14, 2010. A few samples of the "Dear Client" letter sent to Plaintiffs are
illustrated below:

2506 N. Port Avenue
July 27,2010 Corpus Christi,
Texas 78401
877-631-4046 or 877-389-2954 PHONE
Lien Nguyen
1142 Louise St.
Thibodaux, LA 70726
RE:
BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill of Nguyen, Lien (288244)
Dear Lien:
I am very happy that you have chosen our law firm to represent
you in the case of economic damages due to the Deepwater
43
Horizon Oil Spill. This letter is sent to you as our first update of
our work progress informing you of what I believe will happen to
your lawsuit in the next few months.
First, you must be careful! BP is offering minimum compensation
in exchange for your lawsuit. Do Not Sign anything from BP or
anyone else besides Watts Guerra Craft. We are your attorneys
and we are here to help you with all aspects of your claim.
Second, after you sign this contract with our law firm, sign the tax
release form, and fill out our inquiry form, we will the enter your
information into our law firm database. We now have over 15,000
commercial fishermen, shrimpers, and boat owners in this lawsuit
and all their information is being placed in our computer database
for backup. We are in the process of reviewing your file to ensure
that we have all the important information needed, including, but
not limited to, social security numbers and commercial fishing
licenses. We will contact you in the near future if we need
additional information regarding your claim. It is very important
for you to provide this information for your claim.
Third, if you live in Texas, your lawsuit has been filed in the State
of Texas against BP, Transocean, and Cameron. And if you live
elsewhere, your law suit has been filed in the federal court against
the three defendants, as well as against Halliburton. A copy of
your file is on our website, and can be accessed at
http://masstort.wgelawfirm.com/ just by clicking on Documents
on the upper left corner under the name BP, then click on your case
number 4:10-cv-02622.
Fourth, we already submitted a copy of your file to the attorney
that is representing BP. This month, we expect to have more
discussions with them regarding the upcoming process. We intend
to engage early with the BP and the other defendants.
Fifth, as cases have been filed by many different lawyers in
different jurisdictions; a motion to consolidate this lawsuit in a
MDL (Multi-District Litigation) has been filed. The consolidation
is scheduled to meet on July 29 in Boise, Idaho with the MultiDistrict Litigation Panel. I expect the consolidation will be
arranged, and most of the lawsuits filed in the federal court will be
44
centralized before one federal judge. Once we know where and

what court, we will engage quickly in the litigation procedures of
that court, in order to gain a leading central role in this litigation
process thereafter.
Sixth, I have served for the Plaintiffs Steering Committee (PSC)
for previous cases, and I will apply this leading role toward this
case. The plaintiffs litigation team will set up in September or
October, then we will proceed with the lawsuit and prepare for
trial.
Seventh, as I understand the devastation of this disaster will impact
thousands of lives, we intend to engage in all the settlement
discussions with BP and other defendants as soon as we can. We
will inform you, but you are the one will determine the settlement.
I am looking forward to providing you the updated information
periodically, and I will write more information about the plaintiffs
litigation organization once it is completed. If you have any
question, please call one of our toll-free numbers: 877-631-4046 or
877-389-2954. We are actively working on your case until we
canprovide you a written report of the updated information in a
few months.
Thank you for your attention,
Mikal C. Watts30
SAN ANTONIO | HOUSTON | CORPUS CHRISTI | AUSTIN |
EDINBURG
On or about June, 2010, Plaintiffs Tam V. Le, Thim T. Nguyen, Tai Lam, Hung Van
Pham, Minh Tan Vo, Dung Van Nguyen, David Nguyen, Quyet Pham, Nhat Van
Nguyen, Duy Quoc Ha, and Minh Tan Vo were listed as clients on Mr. Watts' and
WGs Complaints. These Complaints were filed with the Southern District of Texas,
Houston Division and Eastern District of Louisiana and Multi-District Litigation

30
See Exhibit 24.
45
Panel. Their names were also listed on Watts PSC application filed via mail and/or
wire with the Eastern District of Louisiana before the Honorable Carl Barbier. (See
"List of Names" attached as Exhibit 2.)Mr. Watts and the other Defendants,
individually, and WG have directly and indirectly conducted and participated in the
conduct of the enterprises affairs through the pattern of racketeering and activity
described above, in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1962(c).
Mr. Watts individually, WG, and other Defendants, listed as clients many Vietnamese
individuals they did not represent, or whose identities had been misappropriated, or
whose representation had been obtained through mail fraud and/or wire fraud.31
Plaintiffs were listed as clients of Mr. Watts in the Deepwater Horizon Litigation
when, in fact, they never were and never have been Mr. Watts' clients. Thus, these
class representatives are also RICO plaintiffs who have standing to sue, because they
were the intended targets, as well as victims, of the complained of activities of Mr.
Watts and the other Defendants, individually, and WG.
In fact, many of these purported Vietnamese client identities listed were obtained
through mail fraud and/or wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sections 1341 and
1343, as well as in violation of Texas Law (Solicitation of Professional Employment).
By filing such claims with the Court as part of Mr. Watts PSC application materials,
Mr. Watts individually, and through WG, used enterprise-related activities to insert
himself unlawfully and officiously into the legitimate claims of many thousands of
vulnerable, economically injured individuals for their ulterior purposes in a scheme

31
Such as by sending letters addressed to Dear Client to individuals who had never signed a retainer
agreement and consent to refer agreement with Watts or the other Defendants.
46
designed and executed to persuade Judge Barbier to appoint Mr. Watts to the PSC
(for the financial benefit of Mr. Watts and the other Defendants).
82.
As a direct and proximate result of Mr. Watts and the other Defendants', individually, and
WGs racketeering activities and violations of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1962(c), the class members have
been injured in their business and property by the unavailability to settle their damages claims,
the million of dollars of fees earmarked for Watts and his co-conspirators, individually, and their
law firm WG, but illicitly obtained by them through racketeering and other dubious and criminal
activities as alleged herein. Moreover, the Plaintiffs and their proposed class members' identities
have been used to earn Watts' position on the PSC and to further their business enterprise in
obtaining other mass torts cases.
IX.
CLASS ALLEGATIONS -- CIVIL RICO SECTION 1962 (c) CLAIM
83.
84.
Furthermore, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3), this action may be maintained as a
class action because questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any
questions affecting only individual members; and a class action is superior to other available
methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy.
85.
The alleged damages were caused primarily by a common set of misrepresentations
(Dear Client letters sent to non-clients; misappropriated identities listed in filings as clients,
individuals or businesses, with no valid contingent fee agreements or written consent to refer
agreements signed by clients; etc.) that ultimately resulted in the falsified client list of Mr. Watts
and the other Defendants, individually, and WG.
Cases where the same or similar
misrepresentations were made to the named plaintiffs and putative class members have been
47
commonly certified. See footnote 32. 32 The Plaintiffs injuries under Section 1962(c) stem from
the predicate acts, as identified herein, of Mr. Watts and the other Defendants, individually, and
WG.
86.
The class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.
87.
There are questions of law or fact common to the class.
88.
The claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses
of the class.33
The representative parties and counsel will fairly and adequately protect the class.
X. VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. SEC. 1985 (3)
AS DEFENDANTS AND THEIR CO-CONSPIRATORS HAVE ACTED OUT OF A
CLASS-BASED ANIMUS AGAINST VIETNAMESE PERSONS BY
USING IDENTITIES OF THE VIETNAMESE
89.
90.
Mr. Watts, WG, and their co-conspirators have conspired for the purpose of depriving
Plaintiffs and the putative class of equal protection of the laws and of equal privileges and
immunities under the laws. The Defendants have acted out of a class-based animus against
Vietnamese persons by targeting and using the identities of mainly the Vietnamese. In McLellan
v. Mississippi Power and Light Co.,545 F.919, 923 (5th Cir. 1977) (en banc), the elements that a
plaintiff must allege and prove for a 42 U.S.C. 1985(3) cause of action, are set forth as follows:

32
See e.g. Klay v. Humana, 382 F.3d 1241, 1247-49 (11th Cir. 2004) (ruling that standard misrepresentation
justified class certification; Eisenberg v. Gagnon, 766 F.2d 770, 786-87 (3d Cir. 1985) (ruling that class should have
been certified where named plaintiffs, and presumably class members, relied on virtually identical offering
materials); Chisolm v. TranSouth Financial Corp., 184 F.R.D. 556, 564 (E.D. Va. 1999) (churning scheme used to
sell, repossess, and resell used cars utilized uniform documents and a single plan to support typicality requirement).
33
The United States Supreme Court decision in Bridge v. Phoenix Bond & Indemnity Co., 128 S. Ct. 2131
(2008) opened the door to the broader application of class certification of RICO class actions. Specifically, in
Bridge, a RICO case that did not involve a class action, the Court held that a plaintiff asserting a RICO claim
predicated on mail fraud may be able to establish proximate cause without showing that the plaintiff relied on the
alleged misrepresentations. Id. at 2145. Thus, under Bridge, the individual issues of reliance do not predominate
over other common issues.
48
91.
(1) The defendants must conspire; (2) For the purpose of depriving, either directly, or
indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal
privileges and immunities under the laws; and (3) The defendants must act in furtherance of the
object of the conspiracy, whereby (4) one was (a) injured in his person or property or (b)
deprived of having and exercising any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States. In
order to demonstrate a violation of the equal protection of laws section, it must be demonstrated
that the plaintiffs have been subjected to racial or other class-based invidious discrimination by
the conspirators' actions. The actions of the defendants' conspiracy must demonstrate a violation
of some law, independent of 1985(3). That Watts, WG and their co-conspirators mainly
targeted and used identities of mainly the Vietnamese Fishermen who do not speak English well
in itself demonstrated that Plaintiffs have been subjected to racial or other class-based invidious
discrimination by the conspirators' actions. It is clear that Watts, WG, and their co-conspirators
have acted together and the evidence establishes that those actions have had the effect of
depriving the plaintiffs of their equal protection of the laws. Watts and his co-conspirators acted
in furtherance of the object of the conspiracy, whereby the Vietnamese fishermen were injured in
their property. The specific laws have been violated by the Defendants will be discussed herein.
XI.
VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. SEC. 1986
AS DEFENDANTS AND THEIR CO-CONSPIRATORS HAVE ACTED OUT OF A
CLASS-BASED ANIMUS AGAINST VIETNAMESE PERSONS BY TARGETING AND
USING IDENTITIES OF THE VIETNAMESE
92.
Plaintiffs adopt each paragraph set forth above as if fully set forth herein. Watts, WG, and
their co-conspirators have violated Plaintiffs' rights by engaging in conduct made unlawful under
42 U.S.C. Section 1986. Section 1986 is a companion to Section 1985. It creates a cause of
action against "[e]very person who, having knowledge that any of the wrongs conspired to be
done, and mentioned in[Section 1985], are about to be committed, and having power to prevent
49
or aid in preventing the commission of the same, neglects or refuses to do so." See Dowsey v.
Wilkins,467 F.2d 1022 (5thCir.1972).The rights protected under Section 1986 are those rights
which are safeguarded under Section 1985.
XII. VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. SEC. 198I
AS DEFENDANTS AND THEIR CO-CONSPIRATORS HAVE ACTED OUT OF
A CLASS-BASED ANIMUS AGAINST VIETNAMESE PERSONS BY
TARGETING AND USING IDENTITIES OF THE VIETNAMESE
93.
94.
By targeting and using identities of mainly Vietnamese fishermen, Defendants have
deprived Plaintiffs of the full and equal benefit of laws and proceedings for the security of
persons, as is enjoyed by white persons, in violation of 42 U.S.C. Section 1981. Section 1981 is
constitutionally supported by the implementing of clauses of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth
Amendments. McDonald v. Santa Fe Trail Transportation Co.,427 U.S. 273 (1976), on remand
540 F.2d 219 (5th Cir.); Runyon v. McCrary,427 U.S. 160 (1976), later app. 569 F.2d 1294 (4th
Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 927. In Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co.,392 U.S. 409 (1968) the
Supreme Court indicated that the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which was the forerunner of Section
1981, was designed "to prohibit all racial discrimination, whether or not under color of law [...]"
and as such was within the constitutional power of Congress under the Thirteenth Amendment.
The rationale of the Jones case, which authorized a private cause of action for discrimination in
the sale or rental of property under 42 U.S.C. Section 1982, has been followed in actions under
42 U.S.C. Section 1981, Penn v. Schlesinger, 490 F.2d 700, 703 (5th Cir. 1973) cert. denied, 426
U.S. 934 (1976); Boudreaux v. Baton Rouge Marine Contracting Co.,437 F.2d 1011, 1016 (5th
Cir. 1971); Sanders v. Dobbs Houses, Inc.,431 F.2d 1097, 1099 (5th Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 401
U.S. 948(1971). Since there is no "state action" or "color of law" requirement under 42 U.S.C.
Section 1981, private citizens are proper defendants in suits arising out of purely private
50
relationships. Id. See also Caldwell v. National Brewing Co.,443 F.2d 1044 (5th Cir. 1971), cert.
denied, 405 U.S. 916 (1972).Section 1981 also protects a panoply of individual rights the
primary one being the right to contract to enjoy a living. E. g., Johnson v. Railway Express
Agency,421 U.S. 454 (1975); Penn v. Schlesinger, supra, 490 F.2d 702; Guerra v. Manchester
Terminal Corp., supra; Boudreaux v. Baton Rouge Marine Contracting Co., supra. In order to
demonstrate a violation of Section 1981, it is only necessary that the plaintiffs show that they
were unlawfully denied, by Defendants, one of the rights protected by this statute. 1 C. Antieau,
Federal Civil Rights Acts 32, 33 (2d Ed. 1980). The Settlement Agreement is a contract
between BP and class counsel on behalf of all class members. Defendants' conduct, which
resulted in Plaintiffs receipt of the Second Round of Payment (Plaintiffs under Class 2) being
delayed, interferes with Plaintiffs' ability to survive and/or their ability to continue their fishing
business, and thus giving rise to a denial of their contractual rights under 42 U.S.C. Section
1981. Section 1981 also provides that "[a]ll persons ... shall have the same right ... to the full and
equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed
by white citizens." It is well established that the "full and equal benefit of all laws" guarantee of
Section 1981 applies to private action. See Central Presbyterian Church v. Black Liberation
Front,303 F.Supp. 894, 901 (E.D.Mo.1969).
XIII. MISAPPROPRIATION OF IDENTITY
95.
96.
Under the common law, the elements of a cause of action for appropriation of name or
likeness are the following: (1) the defendant appropriated the plaintiffs name or likeness for the
value associated with it; (2) the plaintiff can be identified from the publication; (3) the defendant
51
received some advantage or benefit from the appropriation; and (4) the plaintiff suffered an
injury as a result of defendants appropriation.34
97.
Mr. Watts and the other Defendants appropriated Plaintiffs identities for the value they
conferred upon Mr. Watts in the PSC application process and for the financial value associated
with Plaintiffs underlying Deepwater Horizon claims and other referred mass tort litigations.
98.
Specifically, Mr. Watts and the other Defendants represented that these individuals were
their clients in filings made with the Court, GCCF and DHECC when, in fact, these persons had
signed neither a written contingency fee agreement nor written consent to refer entitling Mr.
Watts and WG to do so.
99.
The Watt application to serve on the PSC inaccurately represented to Judge Barbier that
Mr. Watts was the attorney of record for tens of thousands of these Vietnamese individuals in
order to obtain a seat on the PSC, based largely in part on the perception that Mr. Watts had
more clients than anyone else. Specifically, Mr. Watts included the identities of tens of
thousands of such individuals and, in the process, misrepresented to United States District Court
Judge Barbier that he was the attorney of record for 44,510 clients in BP. Mr. Watts and the
other Defendants gained substantial advantages and benefits from the misappropriation of these
Plaintiffs identities. Specifically, Mr. Watts and the other Defendants used the inflated numbers

34
Restatement of the Law, Second, Torts, Sec. 652C Appropriation of Name or Likeness states: One who
appropriates to his own use or benefit the name or likeness of another is subject to liability to the other for invasion
of his privacy. The Comment (b) explains, The common form of invasion of privacy under the rule here stated is
the appropriation and use of the plaintiff's name or likeness to advertise the defendant's business or product, or for
some similar commercial purpose. Apart from the statute, however, the rule stated is not limited to commercial
appropriation. It applies also when the defendant makes use of the plaintiff's name or likeness for his own purposes
and benefit, even though the use is not a commercial one, and even though the benefit sought to be obtained is not a
pecuniary one (emphasis added).
52
of Vietnamese clients to secure Mr. Watts a place on the PSC and used such position to obtain
other mass tort cases for his/their tremendous financial benefit.35
Furthermore, BP's lawsuit against Mr. Watts and WG filed on December 17, 2013, was
the final straw that broke the camel's back. Regardless of the rulings of Judge Barbier and the
5th Circuit, Seafood Neutral and the DHECC will practically delay the second round of payment
to (and consequently will severely damage) tens of thousands of fishermen, including Plaintiffs
in this case, who are true seafood claimants and truly suffered the losses. Additionally, in the
context of misappropriation of name or likeness, under Texas law and other laws, damages can
be recovered, including punitive damages if gross negligence is found, by those whose identities
were misappropriated when there has been a violation of a legal right.
XVI. DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES ACT CLAIM
100.
101.
In the alternative, because WG is a Texas law firm, and because the materials at issue
originated from its Texas offices, the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA) applies to
the claims of all putative misappropriation of identity class members.
102.
Because the DTPA does not require privity, a non-client can sue for violations of the
DTPA. A non-client can bring a DTPA suit against an attorney if the attorney is engaged in a

35
The financial value of each misappropriation may be calculated once the final number of class members
whose identities were misappropriated is determined through discovery. We assert that there are over forty thousand
(40,000) such class members whose names Watts used as his and his firm "clients." And since Watts and WG
obtained fees from their other multi-district litigations and any cases after September of 2010, via his "fame" and
his lead trial team position with the BP Multi-District Litigation (MDL 2179) and this position was obtained,
at least in part, from these over 40,000 Vietnamese names, this amount may be then divided by the number of
misappropriated identity plaintiffs/"clients" to place a financial value per claim. This is an example of a calculation
model for damages to be paid by Watts and the Co-Defendants from their own pockets. Under Texas law, for a
breach of fiduciary duty, the plaintiffs are not required to show actual damages in order to recover for this type of
claim. The Plaintiffs trust that this Court is a Court of equity and submit that justice be granted to these class
members. On December 17, 2013, BP sued Mr. Watts and his Firm and further requested part of $2.3 billion
settlement payment for the second round to the fishermen be stopped. The stopping and/or the delay of any payment
will practically damage thousands of fishermen, who are true seafood claimants who truly suffered the losses.
53
false, misleading, or deceptive act or practice in the representation of his client. See Tex. Bus. &
Com. Code Sec. 17.46.
103.
Plaintiffs can maintain a DTPA suit based on any unconscionable action or course of
action. Tex. Bus. & Com. Code Sec. 17.50(a)(3). An unconscionable act or practice is one that,
to a consumers detriment, takes advantage of a consumers lack of knowledge, ability,
experience, or capacity to a grossly unfair degree. Tex. Bus. & Com. Code Sec. 17.45(5).
104.
Mr. Watts and the other Defendants misrepresented to various federal courts, the JPML,
United States District Court Judge Barbier, the GCCF, the DHECC, and the Claim
Administrators that tens of thousands of Vietnamese individuals were their clients when, in fact,
they were not and never have been, and they did not have a written, signed contingent fee
agreement or any written consent to refer with WG permitting Defendants to make such
representations. Plaintiffs can be easily identified (specifically, each such putative class member
listed as a client of Mr. Watts and the other Defendants in the PSC application materials or with
the GCCF but for whom Mr. Watts and the other Defendants cannot produce the signed retainer
agreements and signed written consents to refer).
105.
Mr. Watts and the other Defendants target-mailed certain written materials to thousands
of economically vulnerable Vietnamese individuals for whom they did not have a signed written
contingency fee agreement and written consent to refer to represent them in the Deepwater
Horizon Litigation. In said materials, Mr. Watts misrepresented himself as these Vietnamese
individuals' attorney and otherwise held himself out to be their duly appointed legal
representative in the claims processing and litigation (instructing them not to sign anything with
anyone other than his firm). In doing so, he committed and participated in an unconscionable act
or practice in that, to a consumers detriment, he and WG took advantage of the consumers lack
of knowledge, ability, experience, or capacity to a grossly unfair degree. This applies equally
54
both to clients he sent these Dear Client letters without authority and to clients that gained by
this scheme (by said individuals returning the materials requested by Watts in the improper
solicitation and in that way forming a relationship with him).Furthermore the continuous fraud
tolled the statute of limitations.
106.
Plaintiffs have suffered damages as a result.

XVII. BREACH OF THEIR FIDUCIARYDUTY TO THE CLASS MEMBERS
107.
108.
By virtue of Watts' position as class counsel and a member of the PSC from October
2010 to February 2013,Watts, WG, and their co-conspirators were (and continue to be) in
confidential, special and/or fiduciary relationships with the Plaintiffs and the members of the
putative class. As fiduciaries, the Defendants owed (and continue to owe) to the Plaintiffs and
Class members:
i.
the commitment to deal fairly and honestly,
ii.
the duties of good faith and undivided loyalty, and
iii.
integrity of the strictest kind. Watts, WG, and their co-conspirators were
(and continue to be) obligated to exercise the highest degree of care in
carrying out their responsibilities to the Plaintiffs and the members of the
putative class under such confidential, special and/or fiduciary
relationships.
109.
Watts, WG, and their co-conspirators breached their fiduciary duties to the Plaintiffs and
Class members. To the extent that either Watts, WG, and their co-conspirators are fiduciaries
who did not breach the duties outlined above, Watts, WG, and their co-conspirators are
nonetheless liable because they had knowledge of the breaches of fiduciary duty committed by
other fiduciaries, and did not make reasonable efforts under the circumstances to remedy such
55
fiduciary breaches. To the extent that either Watts, WG, or their co-conspirators are not a
fiduciary, such Defendants are nonetheless liable because they engaged in transactions with a
breaching fiduciary under circumstances in which they knew (or should have known) about such
fiduciary breaches. Watts, WG, and their co-conspirators breached their fiduciary duties to the
Plaintiffs and Class members by their wrongful actions described above. Watts, WG, and their
co-conspirators willfully and wantonly breached their fiduciary duties to Plaintiffs and Class
members or, at the very least, committed these breaches with conscious indifference and reckless
disregard of their rights and interests. Watts', WG's, and their co-conspirators' wrongful actions
constitute breach of fiduciary under Texas law, Louisiana law, and other state common laws.
110.
Specifically, Mr. Watts (as a former member of the PSC); his Firm; and Watts' co-
conspirators have known all along that Watts' Vietnamese fishermen were not, and still are not,
really their clients and that the Vietnamese fishermen's names were used. By hiding these facts
for their personal gain, Mr. Watts, as a former member of the PSC and his Firm, WG, and their
co-conspirators, breached the fiduciary duty as a member of the PSC to all other relevant
Deepwater Horizon class members , including those whose identities Watts misappropriated. As
Class Counsel and Trial counsel and a former member of the PSC, Watts, and his coconspirators, owed a duty to all plaintiff class members, including members of the seafood
program. Their conduct constituted a breach of their fiduciary duty and conspiracy to breach the
fiduciary duty. Plaintiffs, as class members of the Settlement Program, have suffered damages as
a result.
XIX. NEGLIGENCE
111.
All preceding paragraphs are re-alleged as if fully set forth herein.
112.
Watts had a confidential, special and/or fiduciary relationships with Plaintiffs and Class
members by virtue of being member of the PSC and Class trial counsel since October 2010. At
56
the very least, Watts, WG, and their co-conspirators had a duty to use reasonable means to
protect the class members. Watts, WG, and their co-conspirators also had a duty to protect the
identities of members of the class, including a duty to comply with applicable laws. Watts, WG,
and their co-conspirators also had a duty, to protect Plaintiffs and class members, by timely
informing the courts, the GFCC, the DHECC, the other members of the PSC, and Plaintiffs and
Class members that they could not comply with the requests of BP and the GCCF. Upon
learning of the harm, Defendants and their co-conspirators should have taken immediate action
to protect Plaintiffs and Class members from the foreseeable consequences of the harm.
113.
As a member of the PSC and trial counsel of the class and officer of the Court from
October, 2010 to March, 2013, Watts needed to inform all parties concerned, the courts, the
GCCF, the DHECC, the PSC, and the members of the class that he did not in fact have in his
possession the retainer fee agreements and contracts to protect Plaintiffs and Class members
from the foreseeable consequences of the harm. Watts and his co-conspirators also knew (or
should have known) that he had a duty to do so.
114.
The damages suffered by Plaintiffs and Class members, were the direct and proximate
result of Defendants' negligence. Defendants' wrongful actions constitute negligence.

XX. CONSPIRACY CLAIM
115.
116.
Mr. Watts and the other Defendants and their partners and/or employees at WG and his
co-conspirators were members of a combination of two (2) or more persons.

117.
The object of the combination was to accomplish a lawful purpose (acquiring clients in
the Deepwater Horizon Litigation and ultimately for Mr. Watts to be appointed to the PSC)
through unlawful means (obtaining alleged clients by misappropriation of identity and
improper solicitation and listing them in filings before the court, the GCCF and other locations).
57
118.
The members had a meeting of the minds on the object or course of action as evidenced
by the fact that, in addition to actions of Mr. Watts as discussed throughout, Mr. Craft was listed
as Attorney-in-Charge on many of the filings listing the Vietnamese clients at issue, and that
the actions at issue continued even after publication of the Times article referenced, establishing
the partners implicit endorsement and approval of the scheme being conducted by his partners
Mr. Watts and Mr. Craft.
119.
Mr. Watts and the other Defendants, as well as additional employees of WG, committed
multiple unlawful overt acts, as set forth herein, to further the object or course of action. As a
result of this conspiracy, Mr. Watts is now the subject a Secret Service investigation and has
resigned from the PSC; and Mr. Craft is no longer a member of the firm.
120.
Plaintiffs suffered injury as a proximate result of the wrongful acts.

XXI. DAMAGES
121.
122.
Plaintiffs, individually and as representatives of the proposed class(es), pray for all
damages to which they are entitled under both law and equity herein, including but not limited to
actual damages, mental anguish, punitive damages, treble damages, attorneys fees, costs of
court, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the maximum legal rate, and such other and
further relief to which they may be justly entitled.
XXII. EXEMPLARY OR PUNITIVE DAMAGES
123.
124.
Mr. Watts, the other Defendants, and other attorneys have appropriated identities and
breached the fiduciary duty they owed to both Plaintiffs and members of the putative class. In
the alternative their action constituted gross negligence. Thus, the classes sue Mr. Watts and the
other Defendants for exemplary or punitive damages under Chapter 41 of the Texas Civil
58
Practice and Remedies Code, Louisiana law and other state laws. Because Defendants tortious
and wrongful conduct violated the Texas Penal Code, exemplary or punitive damages in this case
are not limited under Sec. 41.008 (b) of the Texas Civil Practices & Remedies. As such,
Plaintiffs request Defendants to jointly and severally pay an amount of One Billion Dollars
($1,000,000,000.00) as exemplary or punitive damages to deter others from engaging in similar
misconduct. Plaintiffs allege that exemplary damages in this case are warranted and should be
awarded in a manner that takes into account the nature of the wrongful actions of Defendants, the
character of the conduct involved, the degree of the Defendants culpability, the situation and
sensibilities of the parties, the extent to which such conduct offends a public sense of justice and
propriety, and the net worth of Defendants.
XXIII. CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST AND SUIT FOR AN ACCOUNTING
Mr. Watts and WG used Watts' fame as member of the Plaintiffs Steering Committee in
the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill, the largest mass tort and class action in the United States,
to seek employment from other mass tort cases
125.
Mr. Watts and the other Defendants misused the identities of many thousands of
identifiable persons with whom they had no legitimate attorney-client relationship in furtherance
of their own financial scheme. Their end goal is to obtain the massive fees that would surely
flow from PSC appointment in such an immense BP mass tort and other mass tort litigations.
Most importantly, Mr. Watts' appointment to the PSC of the largest MDL/mass tort litigation in
the U.S. also led to many referrals of different mass tort cases to Mr. Watts and WG.
126.
Using his fame as member of the PSC and Trial Lead Position of the biggest mass
tort and class action in the United States, Mr. Watts and WG also sought employment from
other mass tort cases. Equity requires that any and all of his fees in the Deepwater Horizon
Litigation, and any other mass tort litigations referred due to Mr. Watts' appointment to the
PSC of the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill, be disgorged in significant part or in its entirety.
59
Under Texas law (and certain other state laws), the Supreme Court has stated that the clients
actual damages do not have to be suffered or proven. Stated differently, equity requires
Defendants fees obtained from other mass tort cases referred to them by other lawyers and
that came from other clients using Mr. Watts reputation as a PSC member of the Oil Spill
cases during this timeframe be disgorged to the victims whose identities were
misappropriated. Mr. Watts and the other Defendants must be held fully civilly accountable
for their wrongdoing. Plaintiffs request that a constructive trust be imposed on all legal fees
made by Mr. Watts and WG in any litigation that they advertised based on Mr. Watts'
appointment in the Deepwater Horizon Litigation.
Moreover, Plaintiffs request that a
constructive trust be imposed on all legal fees earned in the Deepwater Horizon Litigation
by Mr. Watts' and WG's co-conspirators and that those fees be forfeited. Plaintiffs request
that a constructive trust also be imposed on all legal fees of Watts and WG made in the other
mass tort cases, using Watts' fame as member of the PSC and trial counsel and that those fees
also be forfeited. As such, Plaintiffs are asking the Court to require Defendants to provide an
accounting of
all legal fees made by Mr. Watts and WG and co-conspirators in the
Deepwater Horizon Litigation and in all litigations that they advertised after his appointment
to the BP Deepwater Horizon PSC.
XXIV. JURY DEMAND
127.
Plaintiffs request that a jury be convened to try the factual issues of this case.
XXV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, demand judgment against the Defendants, jointly and severally as
follows:
60
1.
An order certifying the Class for the purpose of going forward with any one or all
of the causes of action alleged herein, including appointing the Plaintiffs as Class
Representatives; and appointing the undersigned counsel as counsel for the Class;
2.
Economic and compensatory damages in amounts to be determined at trial;
3.
Actual damages including specific and general damages in amounts to be

determined at trial;
4.
Exemplary or Punitive damages;
5.
Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the maximum rate allowable by law;
6.
Attorneys fees and costs of litigation based on statutory violation per se; and
7.
such other and further relief available under all applicable state and federal laws
and any relief the court deems just and appropriate.
Respectfully submitted,
LEAD COUNSEL:
BECNEL LAW FIRM, L.L.C.
By: /s/ Daniel Becnel
DANIEL BECNEL
La. Bar No.2926
MATTHEW B. MORELAND
La. Bar No. 24,567
KEVIN P. KLIBERT
LA. Bar No. 26954
SALVADORE CHRISTINA
La. Bar No. 27198
P.O. Drawer H
Reserve, La 70084
Telephone: (985) 536-1186
Telecopier: (985) 536-6445
[email protected]
CO-LEAD COUNSEL:
THE TAMMY TRAN LAW FIRM
ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP
By: /s/ Tammy Tran
TAMMY TRAN
TexasBar No. 20186400
[email protected]
61
PETE MAI
[email protected]
JOHN NA
[email protected]
RYAN NGUYEN
[email protected]
2915 Fannin
Houston, Texas 77002
Telephone: (713) 655-0737
Telecopier: (713) 655-0823
HILL & HILL, P.C. LAW FIRM
J. MARCUS HILL
Texas Bar No. 09638150
1770 St. James Place, Suite 115
Telephone: (713) 688-6318
Telecopier: (713) 688-2817
TOVA VISHNEVSKY
New York Bar No. 4086021
1770 St. James Place, Suite 115
Telephone: (713) 688-6318
Telecopier: (713) 688-2817
62

Watts Lawsuit Vietnamese Fishermen

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Watts Lawsuit Vietnamese Fishermen

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Watts Lawsuit Vietnamese Fishermen

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 2:14-cv-00039-CJB-SS Document 1 Filed 01/07/14 Page 1 of 62

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CIVIL CASE NO.___________

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

CLASS ACTION PURSUANT

PLAINTIFFS ORIGINAL CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Case 2:14-cv-00039-CJB-SS Document 1 Filed 01/07/14 Page 2 of 62

Case 2:14-cv-00039-CJB-SS Document 1 Filed 01/07/14 Page 3 of 62

Mr. Watts and WG were involved in the misappropriation of identities of many of

thousands of Gulf Coast Vietnamese-Americans in order to increase his chances of obtaining a

"Doc. No." means the docket entries in MDL 2179.

Case 2:14-cv-00039-CJB-SS Document 1 Filed 01/07/14 Page 4 of 62

Case 2:14-cv-00039-CJB-SS Document 1 Filed 01/07/14 Page 5 of 62

Case 2:14-cv-00039-CJB-SS Document 1 Filed 01/07/14 Page 6 of 62

misrepresentation, violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act

Case 2:14-cv-00039-CJB-SS Document 1 Filed 01/07/14 Page 7 of 62

Case 2:14-cv-00039-CJB-SS Document 1 Filed 01/07/14 Page 8 of 62

not end the matter. Now pending in Hidalgo County is another

Case 2:14-cv-00039-CJB-SS Document 1 Filed 01/07/14 Page 9 of 62

Case 2:14-cv-00039-CJB-SS Document 1 Filed 01/07/14 Page 10 of 62

Case 2:14-cv-00039-CJB-SS Document 1 Filed 01/07/14 Page 11 of 62

Case 2:14-cv-00039-CJB-SS Document 1 Filed 01/07/14 Page 12 of 62

IV. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Case 2:14-cv-00039-CJB-SS Document 1 Filed 01/07/14 Page 13 of 62

WATTS' AND WG'S TARGETING MAINLY THE VIETNAMESE

See Watts' application to serve on the PSC, exhibit 1.

Case 2:14-cv-00039-CJB-SS Document 1 Filed 01/07/14 Page 14 of 62

BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill of Le, Tam (268303)

Case 2:14-cv-00039-CJB-SS Document 1 Filed 01/07/14 Page 15 of 62

additional information regarding your claim. It is very important

Case 2:14-cv-00039-CJB-SS Document 1 Filed 01/07/14 Page 16 of 62

I am looking forward to providing you with the updated

Case 2:14-cv-00039-CJB-SS Document 1 Filed 01/07/14 Page 17 of 62

Case 2:14-cv-00039-CJB-SS Document 1 Filed 01/07/14 Page 18 of 62

Case 2:14-cv-00039-CJB-SS Document 1 Filed 01/07/14 Page 19 of 62

GCCFC or DHECC for the "clients" they do not represent.

Case 2:14-cv-00039-CJB-SS Document 1 Filed 01/07/14 Page 20 of 62

Mr. Dung Nguyen as Exhibits 17 and 18.) (Emphasis added.)

Case 2:14-cv-00039-CJB-SS Document 1 Filed 01/07/14 Page 21 of 62

July 30, 2012

BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Litigation for Po Nghiem

Case 2:14-cv-00039-CJB-SS Document 1 Filed 01/07/14 Page 22 of 62

that spread throughout the Gulf of Mexico. Preliminary approval

Case 2:14-cv-00039-CJB-SS Document 1 Filed 01/07/14 Page 23 of 62

you in a timely manner. Please make sure to provide the

Case 2:14-cv-00039-CJB-SS Document 1 Filed 01/07/14 Page 24 of 62

previously mentioned, the registration process is the first of many

Case 2:14-cv-00039-CJB-SS Document 1 Filed 01/07/14 Page 25 of 62

Texas City, TX 77590-5532

BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Litigation for Po Nghiem

Case 2:14-cv-00039-CJB-SS Document 1 Filed 01/07/14 Page 26 of 62

Please return your completed Registration Form to our office

December 28, 2012

Case 2:14-cv-00039-CJB-SS Document 1 Filed 01/07/14 Page 27 of 62

Case 2:14-cv-00039-CJB-SS Document 1 Filed 01/07/14 Page 28 of 62

necessary documentation. You have two weeks to provide this

Case 2:14-cv-00039-CJB-SS Document 1 Filed 01/07/14 Page 29 of 62

Case 2:14-cv-00039-CJB-SS Document 1 Filed 01/07/14 Page 30 of 62

Case 2:14-cv-00039-CJB-SS Document 1 Filed 01/07/14 Page 31 of 62