Case Name: Laurance W. BROOKS, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-02-22
Citations: 123 F. App'x 154
Docket Number: No. 04-30881
Parties: Laurance W. BROOKS, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before DAVIS, SMITH and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 123
Pages: 154–155

Head Matter:
Laurance W. BROOKS, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 04-30881.
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided Feb. 22, 2005.
Michael A. Patterson, Daniel D. Holliday, III, Long Law Firm, Baton Rouge, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Louis Victor Gregoire, Jr., Kean, Muller, Hawthorne, D’Armond, McCowan & Jar-man, Baton Rouge, LA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before DAVIS, SMITH and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Exxon Mobil Corporation appeals from the district court's partial grant of summary judgment in favor of Lauranee Brooks, Jr. The district court entered judgment declaring that under a lease agreement between the parties Exxon Mobil is obligated to replace a building that it removed from property owned by Brooks. Exxon Mobil argues that the district court erroneously granted the declaratory judgment because Brooks failed to request such relief in his complaint and because the lease agreement permits Exxon Mobil to remove the building at issue without replacing it.
This court reviews a district court's decision to grant summary judgment de novo, applying the same criteria as the district court. Caboni v. General Motors Corp., 278 F.3d 448, 451 (5th Cir.2002). Following a thorough review of the record and the briefs, we affirm the judgment for essentially the reasons given by the district court.
AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.