Opinion ID: 67234
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Minvielle II

Text: In June 2005, Minvielle again filed suit in Louisiana state court, alleging claims identical to those in Minvielle I, against, among others, Atlantic Refining—an original party to the 1961 lease—and IMC, Oxy, and Pacific Oil, each of which it concedes is a successor-in-interest by sublease or assignment of the 1961 lease. Mosaic was substituted for IMC, and it removed the case to the Western District of Louisiana on the basis of diversity. See Frank C. Minvielle, LLC v. Atl. Ref. Co. (Minvielle II), Civil Action No. 05-1312, 2007 WL 2668715 (W.D. La. Sept. 6, 2007). Minvielle expressly stated in its complaint that the claims in this suit were identical to those in Minvielle I and further agreed with the district court that “there’s nobody who sits at the table in [Minvielle II] that didn’t sit [at] the table [in Minvielle I].” However, Minvielle argued that it now had standing to assert its claims because, after the final judgment in Minvielle I, it executed an amendment to the Act of Cash Sale—the same purported amendment discussed in Minvielle I—which provided that the parties to that agreement intended to assign to Minvielle the right to sue for previous damage to the property. Notably, the alleged amendment, by its very terms, did not amend the Act of Cash Sale or confer any new rights upon Minvielle; rather, as Minvielle acknowledged, it purported only to clarify the original intentions of the 4 No. 08-30399 parties to the agreement.2 Minvielle nonetheless argued that the amendment gave it standing to sue. Appellees moved to dismiss on the ground of res judicata, arguing that Minvielle could not relitigate the question of its standing to assert contract and tort claims against them, as this was the exact same issue the court decided in Minvielle I. The district court converted the motion into one for summary judgment and granted it. In so doing, the district court explained that “[t]he claims asserted are identical to those asserted in Minvielle I, there is commonality of parties, and the court’s jurisdictional ruling in Minvielle I is a final and valid judgment.” Id. at .3 It further noted that the amendment to the Act of Cash Sale—which by its terms did not convey new rights and which even Minvielle’s counsel acknowledged was merely an “act of correction” and “clarification”—did not cure the res judicata effect of the Minvielle I judgment. See id. at .