case. The following three points are clear: First, the plain language of the OPA places the burden on the claimant to show entitlement to the limitation on liability, stating ”[t]he responsible party ... may assert a claim for removal costs and damages under section 1013 [33 USCS § 2713] only if the responsible party demonstrates that-—... (2) the responsible party is entitled to a limitation of liability under section 1004 [33 USCS § 2704].” 33 U.S.C. § 2708(a)(2) (emphasis added)); see also Bean Dredging, LLC v. United States, 773 F.Supp.2d 63, 86 (D.D.C. 2011) ("Congress explicitly placed the burden of proof on the responsible party to establish its entitlement to a limitation of liability.”); Water Quality Ins. Syndicate v. United States, 632 F.Supp.2d 108, 114 (D. Mass. 2009) (<HOLDING>). Second, plaintiff relies on Great American
holding that plain language of opa requires the plaintiff not the united states to  demonstrate that it is entitled to a limitation of liability including that no exceptions apply holding that limitation of liability clause was unambiguous holding that the plaintiff must demonstrate that defendants contacts with the united states as a whole support the exercise of jurisdiction consistent with the constitution and laws of the united states holding that the fourteenth amendment which makes persons bom in the united states and subject to its jurisdiction citizens of the united states and requires that representatives be apportioned among the states based on population excluding indians not taxed did not make an indian a citizen of the united states holding that the plain language of the regulations requires a claimant to have an intent to file a claim for va benefits