Court Opinion

ID: 9398869
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-01 15:07:44.700842+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:36.990350
License: Public Domain

STATE OF LOUISIANA

                              COURT OF APPEAL

                                FIRST CIRCUIT

                               NO. 2022 CA 1273

           FLORIDA GAS TRANSMISSION COMPANY, LLC

                                     VERSUS

                        TEXAS BRINE COMPANY, LLC

          A
          Judgment Rendered: JUN 012023

                                On Appeal from the
                             23rd Judicial District Court
                         In and for the Parish of Assumption
                                 State of Louisiana
                               Trial Court No. 34316

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

Leopold Z. Sher                               Attorneys for Appellant/ Third-
James M. Garner                               Party Plaintiff
Peter L. Hilbert, Jr.                         Texas Brine Company, LLC
Christopher T. Chocheles
New Orleans, Louisiana
and-

Travis J. Turner
Gonzales, Louisiana
and-

Ulysses Gene Thibodeaux
Lake Charles, Louisiana

Roy C. Cheatwood                              Attorneys for Appellee/ Third-
Kent A. Lambert                               Party Defendant
Adam B. Zuckerman                             Legacy Vulcan, LLC
Leopoldo J. Yanez
Matthew C. Juneau
Colleen C. Jarrott
Lauren Brink Adams
New Orleans, Louisiana

               BEFORE: PENZATO, RESTER, AND GREENE, JJ.
HESTER, J.

       This dispute is one of many arising out of the 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, 2022 judgment granting

a partial summary judgment 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 to the trial court.

       In related appeals, this court considered identical judgments originating out of

different trial court numbers ( Docket Numbers 34, 265 and 34, 202, 23rd Judicial

District Court, Assumption Parish) rendered by the same trial court, on the same

date, concerning the same parties, which were also certified as final under La. Code

Civ. P. art. 1915( B).   See Pontchartrain Natural Gas System v. Texas Brine

Company, LLC, 2022- 1001 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 3/ 1123),               So. 3d ,   2023 WL

2291514 and Crosstex Energy Services, LP v. Texas Brine Company, LLC,

2022- 1040 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 3/ 23123),         So. 3d ,    2023 WL 2607770.

       The appeal in Pontchartrain was dismissed after a different panel of this

court determined that subject matter jurisdiction did not exist. Pontchartrain,

So. 3d at ,    2023 WL 2291514 at * 5.        Specifically, this court concluded that the

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, 2004- 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,               So. 3d at ,   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,

                                              2
would merely result in inefficient, piecemeal, and possibly conflicting resolution of

only a minor part of the parties' related contract claims." Yd. ( citing Pontchartrain

Natural Gas System v. Texas Brine Company, LLC, 2022- 0738 (La. App. 1st Cir.

12129122),         So. 3d ,           2022 WL 17983139, * 4).    See also La. Civ. Code 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 of a like nature between the same

parties." (   Emphasis added.))

        In Crosstex,            So. 3d at _,   2023 WL 2607770, * 1, this court determined

that no material distinctions existed between the judgment and issues presented in

Crosstex and those presented in Pontchartrain,                 So. 3d     32023   WL 22915141)

and that the Crosstex judgment did not meet the requirements of a final appealable

judgment under La. Code Civ. P. art. 1915( B) and Messinger, 894 So.2d at 1122.

Finding that this court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the appeal, the appeal

was dismissed and the matter remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.

Crosstex,         So. 3d at ,         2023 WL 2607770, * 1- 2.

        Similarly, a thorough review of the record in the present appeal reveals no

material distinctions between the judgments and issues presented in this appeal and

those   presented     in    Crosstex,            So. 3d   at       2023   WL      2607770,   and

Pontchartrain,             So. 3d ,       2023 WL 2291514.      For the reasons explicitly set

forth in Pontchartrain, 2023 WL 2291514, * 4, and adopted in Crosstex,                   So. 3d

at ,     2023 WL 2607770, *             1, we find the May 5, 2022 judgment at issue in this

appeal does not meet the requirements of a final appealable judgment under La. Code

Civ. P. art. 1915( B) and Messinger, 894 So.2d at 1122. Therefore, we lack subject

matter jurisdiction over this appeal.

                                                   3
       We dismiss the appeal and remand the matter to the trial court for further

proceedings consistent with this opinion.'              This summary disposition is issued 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 Legacy Vulcan, LLC.

       APPEAL DISMISSED; CASE REMANDED.

        I
            Legacy Vulcan' s motion to dismiss the appeal is denied as moot in light of our disposition
of this matter.

                                                    4