Florida Gas Transmission Company, LLC v. Texas Brine Company, LLC ( 2023 )

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL
FIRST CIRCUIT
NO. 2022 CA 1273
FLORIDA GAS TRANSMISSION COMPANY, LLC
VERSUS
TEXAS BRINE COMPANY, LLC
A
Judgment Rendered: JUN 012023
On Appeal from the
23rd Judicial District Court
In and for the Parish of Assumption
State of Louisiana
Trial Court No. 34316
Honorable Thomas J. Kliebert, Jr., Ad Hoc Judge Presiding
Leopold Z. Sher Attorneys for Appellant/ Third-
James M. Garner Party Plaintiff
Peter L. Hilbert, Jr. Texas Brine Company, LLC
Christopher T. Chocheles
New Orleans, Louisiana
and-
Travis J. Turner
Gonzales, Louisiana
and-
Ulysses Gene Thibodeaux
Lake Charles, Louisiana
Roy C. Cheatwood Attorneys for Appellee/ Third-
Kent A. Lambert Party Defendant
Adam B. Zuckerman Legacy Vulcan, LLC
Leopoldo J. Yanez
Matthew C. Juneau
Colleen C. Jarrott
Lauren Brink Adams
New Orleans, Louisiana
BEFORE: PENZATO, RESTER, AND GREENE, JJ.
HESTER, 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 to the trial court.
In related appeals, this court considered identical judgments originating out of
different trial court numbers ( Docket Numbers 34, 265 and 34, 202, 23rd Judicial
District Court, Assumption Parish) rendered by the same trial court, on the same
date, concerning the same parties, which were also certified as final under La. Code
Civ. P. art. 1915( B). See Pontchartrain Natural Gas System v. Texas Brine
Company, LLC, 2022- 1001 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 3/ 1123), So. 3d , 2023 WL
2291514 and Crosstex Energy Services, LP v. Texas Brine Company, LLC,
2022- 1040 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 3/ 23123), So. 3d , 2023 WL 2607770.
The appeal in Pontchartrain was dismissed after a different panel of this
court determined that subject matter jurisdiction did not exist. Pontchartrain,
So. 3d at , 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, 2004- 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, So. 3d at , 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,
2
would merely result in inefficient, piecemeal, and possibly conflicting resolution of
only a minor part of the parties' related contract claims." Yd. ( citing Pontchartrain
Natural Gas System v. Texas Brine Company, LLC, 2022- 0738 (La. App. 1st Cir.
12129122), So. 3d , 2022 WL 17983139, * 4). See also La. Civ. Code 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.))
In Crosstex, So. 3d at _, 2023 WL 2607770, * 1, this court determined
that no material distinctions existed between the judgment and issues presented in
Crosstex and those presented in Pontchartrain, So. 3d 32023 WL 22915141)
and that the Crosstex judgment did not meet the requirements of a final appealable
judgment under La. Code Civ. P. art. 1915( B) and Messinger, 894 So.2d at 1122.
Finding that this court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the appeal, the appeal
was dismissed and the matter remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.
Crosstex, So. 3d at , 2023 WL 2607770, * 1- 2.
Similarly, a thorough review of the record in the present appeal reveals no
material distinctions between the judgments and issues presented in this appeal and
those presented in Crosstex, So. 3d at 2023 WL 2607770, and
Pontchartrain, So. 3d , 2023 WL 2291514. For the reasons explicitly set
forth in Pontchartrain, 2023 WL 2291514, * 4, and adopted in Crosstex, So. 3d
at , 2023 WL 2607770, * 1, we find the May 5, 2022 judgment at issue in this
appeal does not meet the requirements of a final appealable judgment under La. Code
Civ. P. art. 1915( B) and Messinger, 894 So.2d at 1122. Therefore, we lack subject
matter jurisdiction over this appeal.
3
We dismiss the appeal and remand the matter to the trial court for further
proceedings consistent with this opinion.' This summary disposition is issued 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.
I
Legacy Vulcan' s motion to dismiss the appeal is denied as moot in light of our disposition
of this matter.
4