STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2022 CA 1040 CROSSTEX ENERGY SERVICES, LP, CROSSTEX LIG, LLC, AND

CROSSTEX PROCESSING SERVICES, LLC VERSUS TEXAS BRINE COMPANY, LLC, ET AL. Judgment Rendered: Appealed from the 23rd Judicial District Court In and for the Parish ofAssumption

State of Louisiana Docket Number 34202 

### MAR 2 3 2023

Honorable Thomas J. Kliebert,Jr.,

### Ad HocJudge Presiding

Leopold Z. Sher James M.Garner Peter L. Hilbert, Jr. ChristopherT. Chocheles New Orleans, LA Travis J. Turner Gonzales, LA Uylsses Gene Thibodeaux Lake Charles, LA 

### Roy C. Cheatwood Kent A. Lambert Adam B. Zuckerman Leopoldo J. Yanez Matthew C. Juneau Lauren Brink Adams New Orleans, LA Attorneys for Defendant/Third

### Party Plaintiff/

Appellant Texas Brine Company, LLC

Attorneys for Defendant/Appellee 

### LegacyVulcan,LLC

BEFORE: GUIDRY, C.J., LANIER AND HESTER,JJ.GUIDRY, C.J.



### This dispute is one of many arising out ofthe August 2012 sinkhole that appeared near Bayou Come in Assumption Parish, Louisiana. In this appeal, 

### Texas Brine Company, LLC (" Texas Brine") 

### challenges a May 5, 2022judgment 

### granting a partial summaryjudgment in favor of Legacy Vulcan, LLC (" Legacy Vulcan") and against Texas Brine, 

### dismissing Texas Brine's contractual claim against Legacy Vulcan under the Assignment of Salt Lease. For the following reasons, we dismiss this appeal and remand the matter backto the trial court. In a related appeal, 

### this court recently considered an identical judgment 

### originating out of a different trial court number ( Docket Number 34,265, 23rd 

### Judicial District Court,Assumption Parish) rendered bythe sametrial court, on the 

## same date, concerningthe same parties,which was also certified as final underLa. C.C.P. art. 1915(B). See Pontchartrain Natural Gas System v. Texas Brine Company, LLC, 22- 1001 ( 

### La. App. 1st Cir. 311123), _ So. 3d _, 2023 WL 2291514. The appeal in Pontchartrain was dismissed after a different panel of this court determined that subject matterjurisdiction did not exist. Pontchartrain, 22- 

### 1001 at p. 9, 2023 WL 2291514 at * 5. 

### Specifically, this court concluded thatthe May 5, 

### 2022 partial summary judgment did not meet the requirements of an appealable judgment under La. C.C.P. art. 1915(B) and R.J. Messinger, Inc. v. Rosenblum, 04- 1664 (La. 312105), 894 So. 2d 1113. Id. Although Texas Brine and 

### Legacy Vulcan entered into several interdependent contracts, the issue on appeal 

### was limited to Texas Brine's claim against Legacy Vulcan for breach of the
parties' Assignment of Salt Lease. Pontchartrain, 

### 22-1001 at p. 8, 2023 WL 2291514 at * 4. Therefore, 

### any decision by this court on this limited claim, without consideration of the remaining interdependent contracts and claims 

### thereupon, would merely result in inefficient, piecemeal, and possibly conflicting 2

### resolution ofonly a minor part ofthe parties' related contract claims." Id. Ci_ tiny 

### Pontchartrain Natural Gas System v. Texas Brine Company, LLC, 22-0738, p. 6 La.App. lst Cir. 12/29/22), _ So. 3d _, 2022 WL 17983139, * 4. See also La. C.C. art. 2053 (" A doubtful provision [in a contract] must be interpreted in light of 

### the nature ofthe contract,equity, usages,the conduct ofthe parties before and after 

## the formation ofthe contract,and ofother contracts ofa like nature between the

same parties." ( Emphasis added.)) After a thorough review of the record, we find no material distinctions between the judgment and issues presented in this appeal and those presented in Pontchartrain, 22- 1001, 2023 WL 2291514. For the reasons set forth in 

### Pontchartrain, 22- 1001 at p. 8, 2023 WL 2291514 at *4, we find the May 5, 2022 judgment at issue in this appeal does not meet the requirements of a final 

### appealablejudgment under La. C.C.P. art. 1915(B) and Messinger, 04- 1664 at p. 13, 894 So. 2d at 1122. Therefore, we lack subject matterjurisdiction over this appeal. We dismiss the appeal and remand the matter to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 

### We issue this summary disposition in accordance with Uniform Rules —Courts of Appeal, Rule 2- 16.2(A)( 1), ( 2), ( 4), and ( 6). 

### All costs of this appeal are assessed equally between Texas Brine Company, LLC and LegacyVulcan,LLC. APPEAL DISMISSED; CASE REMANDED.'



### On January 24, 2023, Legacy Vulcan, LLC filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. Considering 

### ourdisposition ofthis matter,the motion to dismissthe appeal filed by LegacyVulcan is denied as moot. 

### On March 10, 2023, Texas Brine Company, LLC filed a motion to cancel oral argument, dismiss appeal and remand to district court. Considering our disposition of this matter, the 

### motion to dismiss appeal and remand to district court filed by Texas Brine Company, LLC is denied as moot. 

### We further notethat although this matterwas initially set for oral argument on 

### March 14, 2023, the matter was ultimately submitted on briefs by agreement ofthe parties in light ofTexas Brine Company, LLC's motion to cancel oral argument. 3