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

• Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
• Decided: February 17, 2023
• Docket: 2022CA0782
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

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