Enterprise Products Operating L.P. v. Enron Gas Liquids Inc.

119 F. App'x 344
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit
DecidedJanuary 13, 2005
DocketNo. 04-1281
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 119 F. App'x 344 (Enterprise Products Operating L.P. v. Enron Gas Liquids Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Enterprise Products Operating L.P. v. Enron Gas Liquids Inc., 119 F. App'x 344 (2d Cir. 2005).

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

Appellant Enterprise Products Operating L.P. (“Enterprise”) appeals from the judgment of the District Court, affirming the Bankruptcy Court’s order denying Enterprise’s claim for an artisan’s lien under Article XVI § 37 of the Texas Constitu[345]*345tion.1 Specifically, Enterprise contends that it is an “artisan” within the meaning of § 37, that it acquired a $528,486.70 artisan’s lien in connection with its separation or “fractionation”2 of mixed natural gas liquids (“NGLs”) at the request of appellee Enron Gas Liquids Inc. (“EGLI”) and that Enterprise is therefore entitled to priority over EGLI’s unsecured creditors.

The District Court concluded that Enterprise is not an artisan within the meaning of § 37 because the “word ‘artisan,’ as generally understood, does not encompass a provider of fractionation services ... whose laborers’ primary function is to set the controls and parameters, and ‘monitor’ what is essentially an automated, mechanized process.” In re Enron Corp., 306 B.R. 33, 42 (S.D.N.Y.2004). In reaching this conclusion, the District Court properly relied on controlling Texas state law— which provides that an “artisan” under § 37 is “one skilled in some mechanical craft; one who is employed in an industrial or mechanic art or trade; or one trained for manual dexterity in some mechanic art or trade,” id. at 41 & n. 54 (quoting Warner Mem’l Univ. v. Ritenour, 56 S.W.2d 236, 237 (Tex.Civ.App.1933, writ ref'd) (internal quotation marks omitted)) — and correctly found that Enterprise was not an “artisan” under § 37.

We therefore affirm the District Court’s opinion and order and reject Enterprise’s claim that it is entitled to an artisan’s constitutional hen.

^ sfc }£ }£

We have considered all of appellant’s arguments and have found each of them to be without merit. Accordingly, the judgment of the District Court is hereby AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Alpha Media Holdings LLC
E.D. Virginia, 2021
In Re Worldcom, Inc.
382 B.R. 610 (S.D. New York, 2008)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
119 F. App'x 344, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/enterprise-products-operating-lp-v-enron-gas-liquids-inc-ca2-2005.