Court Opinion

ID: 9372143
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-17 22:04:16.186812+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:33.218675
License: Public Domain

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

                                    STATE OF LOUISIANA

                                      COURT OF APPEAL

                                        FIRST CIRCUIT

                                         2022 CA 0782

                CROSSTEX ENERGY SERVICES, LP, CROSSTEX LICA LLC,
                       AND CROSSTEX PROCESSING SERVICES, LLC

                                            VERSUS

     TEXAS BRINE COMPANY, ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY &
         AMERICAN GUARANTEE AND LIABILITY INSURANCE COMPANY

                                                    Judgment Rendered:        FEB 17 2023

                         On Appeal from the 23rd Judicial District Court
                               In and for the Parish of Assumption
                                        State of Louisiana
                                Trial Court Docket Number 34202

                       Hon. Thomas J. Kliebert, Jr. Judge Presiding, Ad Hoc

     James M. Garner                                Counsel for Appellant/
     Leopold Z. Sher                                Third -Party Plaintiff,
     Peter L. Hilbert, Jr.                          Texas Brine Company, L.L.C.
     Jeffrey D. Kessler
     Christopher T. Chocheles
     Darnell Bludworth
     New Orleans, Louisiana
            and

     Royce I. Duplessis
     New Orleans, Louisiana
            and

     Ulysses Gene Thibodeaux
     Lake Charles, Louisiana
            and

     Travis J. Turner
     Gonzales, Louisiana
            and

     Robert Ryland Percy, III
     Gonzales, Louisiana

     He5f") :     5,
e\
Roy C. Cheatwood                   Counsel for Appellee/
Kent A. Lambert                    Third -Party Defendant,
Colleen C. Jarrott                 Legacy Vulcan, LLC
Adam B. Zuckerman
Matthew C. Juneau
Leopoldo J. Yanez
Lauren Brink Adams
New Orleans, Louisiana

          BEFORE: HOLDRIDGE, PENZATO, AND HESTER, JJ.

                               2
PENZATO, J.

      This dispute is one of many arising out of the August 2012 sinkhole that

appeared near Bayou Come in Assumption Parish.                  In this appeal, Texas Brine

Company, LLC challenges a January 18, 2022 judgment that granted Legacy

Vulcan, LLC' s "   Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Dismissing Texas Brine' s

Claims Under the Amended Operating Agreement"                  and dismissed Texas Brine' s

claims against Legacy Vulcan under the parties' Amended Operating Agreement.

After review, we dismiss the appeal and remand the matter to the trial court. The

motion to dismiss the appeal filed by Legacy Vulcan is denied as moot.

      In a related appeal, this court recently considered a substantially similar

judgment rendered by the same trial court, on the same day, in a different trial

court docket number.      See Pontchartrain Natural Gas System v                 Texas Brine

Company, LLC, 2022- 0738 ( La. App.      1st Cir. 12129122),            So. 3d        2022 WL

17983139 ( No. 34, 265,    23rd Judicial District Court, Assumption Parish).              The

judgment at issue in Pontchartrain,            So.3d          2022 WL 179831391, * 2- 3, also

granted a " Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Dismissing Texas Brine' s Claims

Under the Amended Operating Agreement" filed by Legacy Vulcan and dismissed

Texas Brine' s contract claims against Legacy Vulcan under the parties' Amended

Operating Agreement. Like the judgment in Pontchartrain,                     So. 3d      2022

WL 17983139, * 3, the judgment before us in this appeal was designated as a final

judgment pursuant to La. C. C.P. art. 1915.

      The appeal in Pontchartrain,         So. 3d ,           2022 WL 17983139, at * 4, was

dismissed after a different panel of this court determined that subject matter

jurisdiction did not exist.   Specifically, this court concluded that the January 18,

2022 partial summary judgment did not meet the requirements of an appealable

final judgment     under La. C. C. P.   art.       1915( B)   and R.J. Messinger, Inc.     v.

Rosenblum, 04- 1664 ( La. 312105), 894 So. 2d 1113, 1122.             Although Texas Brine

                                               C
and Legacy Vulcan entered into several interdependent contracts,                          the issue on

appeal was limited to Texas Brine' s claims against Legacy Vulcan for breach of

the parties' Amended Operating Agreement. Therefore, any decision by this court

on these limited claims, "                  without consideration of the remaining interdependent

contracts and claims thereupon, would merely result in inefficient, piecemeal, and

possibly conflicting resolution of only a minor part of the parties' related contract

claims."       Pontchartrain,                 So. 3d         2022 WL 17983139, at * 4. See La. C. C. P.

art. 2053 (" A doubtful provision [ in a contract] must be interpreted in light of the

nature of the contract, equity, usages, the conduct of the parties before and after the

formation of the contract, and of other contracts ofa like nature between the same

parties.") (      Emphasis added.)

          After a thorough review of the record in this appeal, we find no material

distinctions between the judgment and issues presented in this appeal and those

presented in Pontchartrain,                       So. 3d ,        2022 WL 17983139.    For the reasons

set forth in Pontchartrain,                     So. 3d       12022
                                                                     WL 17983139, we find the January

18, 2022 judgment at issue in this appeal does not meet the requirements of a final

appealable judgment under La. C. C. P. art. 1915( B) and R.J. Messinger, Inc,, 894

So.2d at 1122. Therefore, we lack subject matter jurisdiction over this appeal.

          We dismiss the appeal and remand the matter to the trial court for further

proceedings consistent with this opinion-'                         Considering our disposition of this

matter, the motion to dismiss the appeal filed by Legacy Vulcan is denied as moot.

All costs of this appeal are assessed equally between Texas Brine Company, LLC

and Legacy Vulcan, LLC.

          MOTION               TO     DISMISS APPEAL DENIED AS                     MOOT; APPEAL
DISMISSED; CASE REMANDED.

1 We issue this summary disposition in accordance with Uniform Rules— Courts              of Appeal, Rule
2- 16. 2( A)( 1), (   2), ( 4), and ( 6).

                                                              M