DocketNumber： 2018CA1159
Filed Date： 11/15/2019
Status： Precedential
Modified Date： 10/22/2024
STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2018 CA 1159 PONTCHARTRAIN NATURAL GAS SYSTEM, K/D/ S PROMIX, L.L.C., AND ACADIAN GAS PIPELINE SYSTEM VERSUS TEXAS BRINE COMPANY, LLC Judgment Rendered: NOV 1 5 2019 On Appeal from the 23rd Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of Assumption State of Louisiana Trial Court No. 34, 265 Honorable Thomas J. Kliebert, Jr., Judge Presiding Leopold Z. Sher Attorneys for Appellant/ James M. Garner Defendant, Third -Party Plaintiff, Peter L. Hilbert, Jr. Texas Brine Company, LLC Jeffrey D. Kessler New Orleans, Louisiana Robert Ryland Percy, III Gonzales, Louisiana Travis J. Turner Gonzales, Louisiana Joseph L. Shea, Jr. Attorneys for Appellee/ Third-Party Katherine Smith Baker Defendant, Ashley G Gable Reliance Petroleum Corporation Joshua S. Chevallier Shreveport, Louisiana Matthew J. Randazzo, III Attorneys for Appellees/ Third-Party Christopher B. Bailey Defendants, Will Montz LORCA Corporation and Colorado Lafayette, Louisiana Crude Company Frank H. Spruiell, Jr. Attorneys for Appellee/ Third-Party Reid A. Jones Defendant, Seth M. Moyers Sol Kirschner Shreveport, Louisiana Martin A. Stern Attorneys for Appellees/ Defendants, Leigh Ann Schell Third -Party Defendants, Raymond P. Ward Occidental Chemical Corporation, Sara Valentine Occidental Petroleum Corporation, New Orleans, Louisiana Basic Chemicals Company, LLC, and Occidental VCM, LLC Kathy Patrick Angus J. Dodson Laura J. Kissel Houston, Texas Sidney W. Degan, III Attorneys for Appellee/Third-Party Julia A. Dietz Defendant, Catherine Thigpen Chicago Insurance Company Matthew F. Morgan New Orleans, Louisiana BEFORE: HIGGINBOTHAM,' PENZATO, AND LANIER, JJ. Judge Toni Manning Higginbotham was not present at the oral argument of this case; however, she participated in deliberations via a recording of the hearing. 2 PENZATO, J. This is one of several lawsuits arising from the appearance of a sinkhole near Bayou Come in Assumption Parish, Louisiana, in August 2012. The plaintiffs herein, Pontchartrain Natural Gas System, K/D/ S Promix, L.L.C., and Acadian Gas Pipeline System, filed suit against Texas Brine Company, LLC, alleging that Texas Brine' s mining operations at the brine production well known as Oxy Geismar # 3 caused the sinkhole and damaged their nearby oil storage facilities and pipelines. Relevant hereto, Texas Brine filed incidental demands asserting both tort and contract claims against the following non -operators of the nearby Adams -Hooker 1 oil and gas well: Colorado Crude Company, Sol Kirschner, LORCA Corporation, and Reliance Petroleum Corporation and its insurer, Chicago Insurance Company. The non -operators filed motions for summary judgment seeking the dismissal of their tort claims. Following a hearing, the trial court granted the motions by judgment signed August 28, 2017. Because the judgment dismissed all tort claims against the non -operators, the trial court determined that there was no just reason for delay, and designated the judgment as a final judgment as to the tort claims against the non -operators. Texas Brine appealed, and this court affirmed the August 28, 2017 judgment in Pontchartrian Natural Gas System a Texas Brine Company, LLC, 2018- 0606 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 12/ 21/ 18),268 So. 3d 1058
, writ denied, 2019- 0526 ( La. 6/ 17/ 19),273 So. 3d 1210
. The non -operators also filed motions for summary judgment seeking the dismissal of Texas Brine' s contract claims. The motions were granted, and Texas Brine' s contract claims against the non -operators were dismissed by judgment dated September 27, 2017. Texas Brine then appealed the judgments dismissing the non -operators, including both the September 27, 2017 judgment and the August 28, 2017 judgment, in a single appeal. This court lodged the appeals separately, 3 under this docket number ( 2018 CA 1159) for the August 28, 2017 judgment dismissing the tort claims, and under docket number 2018 CA 1170 for the September 27, 2017 judgment dismissing the contract claims. We have determined that this appeal is a duplicate of the appeal that was filed by Texas Brine and addressed by this court in Pontchartrain,268 So. 3d 1058
. Because we have previously addressed the merits, this appeal ( docket number 2018 CA 1159) is moot. We further note that the pending rule to show cause as to the timeliness of this appeal and the motion to supplement the record are also moot. Accordingly, we hereby dismiss this appeal and the pending motions via summary disposition in accordance with Uniform Court of Appeal Rule 2- 16. 2. A( 2) and ( 3). All costs of this appeal are assessed against Texas Brine Company, LLC. RULE TO SHOW CAUSE, MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD, AND APPEAL DISMISSED. 11