and some time after that the minerals or so and i think i don't know whether they were so but it's it's irrelevant to the discussion here because what we're talking about here is the real rights to separate the case the richard grosso case is now pending on a motion for summary judgment on prescription the louisiana third circuit has just come out with a case for summary judgment do have these situations and the prescription addition is a very sad fact intensive ition and i don't know if we can go back and try to prescription we can do that but the defenders chose to the right is a right in the sort against the world so for us johnson was the first case it said look all mineral rights or real rights and there's a significance to that and that significance has been basically is as creating a servant to a limited personal servitude and stated that the owner of the land the waltons all the servant the state and the general principle circuit which says treat it as a minimal truth of the issue is to cement a release as a limited personal servitude but then goes on to talk about this mental case which i also was involved in so we have a clear law that says a middle east is a limited personal so as to be treated as such we have a minimal code saying you have to look at the articles of the civil code so what we have is if you look  wall to case that well to case directly conflicts in the well to case the personal claims were dismissed and the court held that based upon the fact that  unification of ownership the leases here there were a dozen plus leases maybe fifteen leases granted way back in the thirty's and forty's they expired in one nine hundred seventy three by operational law  so so the facts are in dispute but what before the court is an issue of louisiana law that has been repeatedly in front of the louisiana appellate courts and it and it's this whether a party that acquires property has a right of action and that's a louisiana term a right of action the acquired the property so in this case the mineral operations ended in the early seventy's mr gill the part of the land in two thousand and seven on this point louisiana log couldn't be more clear under those circumstances the land though has no standing to sue a former mineral lessee of an expired lease which in this case is hassen and the district court got it exactly right when it granted summary judgment in favor of house and quote louisiana jurisprudence overwhelmingly classifies a right of action on damages to land as a personal right rather than a real right that runs with the land the court got it right and has respectfully ask the panel to affirm summary judgment louisiana was so well settled on this issue that in two thousand and thirteen an earlier panel of this court in broussard vs dow chemical not only applied the subsequent purchaser god printed to deny the claim of the landowner but the court decided neither to publish its opinion nor to grant certification to the louisiana supreme court if you read the opinion that you don't see anything the certification but in the record in the case if you look at the briefs it's very clear that the appellate requested certification and the panel standard on the on certification so that was in two thousand and thirteen and it would be an understatement to say that we zero remain settled on this issue in fact as the louisiana supreme court  a former lease that had expired the some examples opposed to sort of cases applying the doctrine in the context of experimental leases or the first circuits decision in global marketing that's one fifty three southern third twelve and nine in the third circuit's the louisiana third circuit's decision in bunder versus in the dark zero one fifty nine southern third eleven thirty seven those two decisions could not be more on point with the facts and legal issues in this case and critically so we've had this this body of law and the subsequent purchaser doctrine built up over the years and it is in creasing lee applied to cases involving mineral rights but in building that body of law louisiana courts have repeatedly considered and rejected the very same property law arguments that if we go is asserting today mr marcella noted that he was counsel in some of these other cases and these very same arguments were asserting in those case rejected by the courts in both global marketing bunder it could i just mention the landowners asserted that the right to sue for damages was a real rape that automatically transferred with the land based on the same combination cases the courts consider those arguments and rejected the same arguments were also rejected prior to the louisiana supreme court's decision in eagle pike in cases involving the holies expired minerals and you can see that case is a federal court case rather than a stick court case but i point out for two reasons one is it contains a particularly clear analysis and explanation of this area of louisiana law and second louisiana appell garcon cases involving the oil and gas industry the only thing that really challenges from one case to another the parties in every case the legal theories that in the circuit are the same in every case the legal argument about real rights are the same in every case the results are the same the louisiana courts have uniformly determined that the right to assert claim for property damage is not a real right to transfer it with ownership but is instead a personal right issue in walton had to do with was pre purchased damages that was the only issue on appeal the court statements about on adjudicated claims in about post purchase damage claims were dicta as the concurring opinion wall and made clear walton at the time of the suit the land was subject to existing mineral leases and mineral server to use of the land with birds in that case with exist these existing mineral rights meaning that there was a concurrent ongoing use of the property by both the surface owner and these mineral owners creating the possibility that the new landowner would at some point have claims against those parties but the fact that there  by the current owner but not befor found that the right to the right to bring a claim for damages to property is a personal right and further there's a key fundamental point here that mr gill though misses and it's and is this  between the plaintiff's ownership of the land and the defendant's conduct and by that i mean for in a claim for property damage and it doesn't matter what the legal theory is behind the claim it could be tort he could be contracted could be something else it doesn't matter what the what remedy is sought whether it's money damages or restoration any claim for property damage is personal in so it can only be brought by the person who own the land at the time the alleged damage occur without that temporal alignment under which the owner of property at the time the damaged her could assign its claims to the to a new owner that would then be subject to you know and likely different defenses but that assignment is a possibility under louisiana law parent unknown damage that this particular cochrane applies regardless of whether the damage is known or unknown now you know just because mr goldberg doesn't have a claim against has doesn't mean he has no remedies he could sue his the party that sold them the land in warranty and he can also go to the louisiana department of natural resources and ask them to initiate a regulatory proceeding if and if the land is in fact contaminated the department of natural resources may do that and in the supreme court in the in the maryland case forty eight southern third two fifty six footnote eighteen may know the possibility of that sort of regulatory claim purchased damages in addition in the district court mr gobo conceded that the that he is not asserting and he sort of post acquisition continuing trust pass we're continuing to when you put all these things together hasn't been on the land he's not seeking damages prior to his acquisition in two thousand and seven he's not asserting continuing press pass or continuing tort he's effectively conceded that has has no liability there is nothing else we've had two hundred years of civil on louisiana we've had more than one hundred years of one guess case law and there's not a single case or or statute that supports this claim one other point related to mr goebbels reliance on twenty nine but in an area in an earlier pleading in the district court mr gilbert said that that very same statute title thirty section twenty nine does not apply in this case and that's in the record of pages one zero zero nine three one zero one three were and given the admission that that doesn't apply here that tooth demonstrates that he has no c louisiana to guide him in a diversity case and here i think if you look at the sequence of some of the louisiana supreme court actions it demonstrates that the supreme court knows exactly what's going on  agree that based on legal piety subsequent purchaser doctrine did apply for the claim the landowner sought then a writ from the supreme court the supreme court denied it so when the lower appellate court had it had refused to apply the subsequent purchase subsequent purchase doctrine had been applied the court denied the writ there again in a case where the where the got to have been applied the poor the court refused to take a picture with the case of the louisiana supreme court in the six years since eagle pipe has had marshall existed doesn't exist and we've covered that cover that well in our brief one point about the legislator louisiana courts have been consistent on this point for a hundred fifty years the legislature has revised the civil code repeatedly over the same purchase but not prepared yes but my point is that if part of the damage that is burden for certain states occur prior to the purchase w courtship always hold till their actions were laid related to the enjoyment of the things so passed without in the sun so if you only make it ownership for example in the use of from you that you have owned that property you own them bundle of sticks that was the naked ownership and the important thing here is that that claim that claim can be asserted that any time