Pontchartrain Natural Gas System, k/d/s Promix, L.L.C., and Acadian Gas Pipeline System v. Texas Brine Company, LLC

Opinion

STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST CIRCUIT

NO. 2018 CA 0493

PONTCHARTRAIN NATURAL GAS SYSTEM, K/D/ S PROMIX, L.L.C., AND ACADIAN GAS PIPELINE SYSTEM

VERSUS

V TEXAS BRINE COMPANY, LLC

Judgment Rendered: SEP 2 7 2019

V 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/Defendant, James M. Garner Third -Party Plaintiff, Peter L. Hilbert, Jr. Texas Brine Company, LLC Christopher T. Chocheles Jeffrey D. Kessler Rebekka C. Veith David A. Freedman New Orleans, LA

Travis J. Turner Gonzales, LA

R. Ryland Percy, III Gonzales, LA

Mary S. Johnson Attorneys for Appellee/ Defendant, Mandeville, LA Third Party Defendant, New Hampshire Insurance Company Nichole M. Gray solely in its capacity as an alleged Chad J. Mollere insurer of Occidental Chemical New Orleans, LA Corporation, Occidental Petroleum Corporation, and/or Oxy USA, Inc.)

BEFORE: HIGGINBOTHAM, PENZATO, AND LANIER, JJ. HIGGINBOTHAM, J.

Texas Brine Company, LLC, appeals a September 13, 2017 judgment

sustaining a declinatory exception raising the objection of lis pendens filed by New

Hampshire Insurance Company (" New Hampshire"), as an alleged insurer of

Occidental Chemical Corporation, Occidental Petroleum Corporation, and/ or Oxy USA, Inc. ( collectively, " Oxy"). That judgment dismissed " any and all claims,

demands, and/ or allegations asserted by [ Texas Brine] against [ New Hampshire]

in their entirety, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, in favor of the first -filed set of

claims and demands," without declaring which of the multiple sinkhole cases was

the first -filed suit.

We have repeated the history of this litigation multiple times in many appeals; thus, we will not reiterate the background herein. Shortly before the

hearing for this appeal, Texas Brine filed an exception of lack of appellate

jurisdiction, relying on recent precedent on this same issue. See Pontchartrain

Natural Gas System, et al v. Texas Brine Company, LLC, 2018- 0419 ( La. App. 1 st Cir. 6/ 26/ 19), So. 3d 2019 WL 26090349 2, writ denied, stay

denied, 2019- 01125 La. 7/ 17/ 19), So. 3d 2019 WL 3491637; and

Pontchartrain Natural Gas System, et al v. Texas Brine Company, LLC, 2018-

0435 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 6/ 26/ 19), So. 3d , 2019 WL 2609142, * 2.

Appellate courts have a duty to examine subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte,

even when the parties do not raise the issue. Texas Gas Exploration Corp. v.

Lafourche Realty Co., Inc., 2011- 0520 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 11/ 9/ 11), 79 So. 3d

1054, 1059, writ denied, 2012- 0360 ( La. 4/ 9/ 12), 85 So. 3d 698.

This court' s jurisdiction extends to final judgments and interlocutory

judgments expressly provided by law. See La. Code Civ. P. art. 2083. A final

appealable judgment must contain decretal language and it must name the party in

favor of whom the ruling is ordered, the party against whom the ruling is ordered,

2 and the relief that is granted or denied. Further, a valid judgment must be precise,

definite, and certain. These determinations should be evident from the language of

the judgment without reference to other documents in the record. In the absence of

a valid final judgment, this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Advanced

Leveling & Concrete Solutions v. Lathan Company, Inc., 2017- 1250 ( La. App.

1st Cir. 12/ 20/ 18), 268 So. 3d 1044, 1046- 1047 ( en banc).

In this case, it is not possible to determine, from the language of the

judgment alone, what constitutes the " first -filed set of claims and demands," as

referenced in the judgment. The " first -filed set of claims and demands" is clearly

disputed by the parties and was the key issue squarely before the district court on

the declinatory exception of lis pendens. However, rather than deciding the issue,

the district court actually struck through all of the language in the judgment

pertaining to the identification of the first -filed suit. Accordingly, this court is

unable to determine the exact relief that is granted or denied by the judgment. We

find that the indefinite judgment is not a final, appealable judgment. Thus, we lack

subject matter jurisdiction to consider this appeal and we therefore, sustain Texas

Brine' s exception in part, dismissing this appeal. However, we deny Texas Brine' s

additional request that we await a final determination of the entire underlying suit

before assessing costs.

CONCLUSION

We issue this summary opinion in accordance with Uniform Court of Appeal

Rule 2- 16. 2A( 1) and ( 2), sustaining Texas Brine' s exception in part and dismissing

this appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. This disposition is clearly

controlled by case law precedent. Additionally, because we dismiss the appeal for

lack of jurisdiction, we pretermit ruling on all pending motions connected to this

appeal. We assess all costs of this appeal to Texas Brine Company, LLC.

EXCEPTION SUSTAINED IN PART; RULINGS ON ALL PENDING MOTIONS PRETERMITTED; APPEAL DISMISSED.