Court Opinion

ID: 9381830
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-23 21:05:40.106737+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:34.760617
License: Public Domain

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:
                                                                 MAR 2 3 2023

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

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

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

Travis J. Turner
Gonzales, LA

Uylsses Gene Thibodeaux
Lake Charles, LA

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

            BEFORE:      GUIDRY, C. J., LANIER AND HESTER, JJ.
GUIDRY, C.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 back to 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 by the same trial court, on the

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

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 matter jurisdiction did not exist. Pontchartrain, 22-

1001 at p. 9, 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, 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 of only a minor part of the 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 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.))

        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

appealable judgment under La. C. C.P. art. 1915( B) and Messinger, 04- 1664 at p.

13, 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.           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 Legacy Vulcan, LLC.

APPEAL DISMISSED; CASE REMANDED.'

 On January 24, 2023, Legacy Vulcan, LLC filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. Considering
our disposition of this matter, the motion to dismiss the appeal filed by Legacy Vulcan 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 note that although this matter was initially set for oral argument on
March 14, 2023, the matter was ultimately submitted on briefs by agreement of the parties in
light of Texas Brine Company, LLC' s motion to cancel oral argument.
                                                3