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

STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST CIRCUIT

NO. 2018 CA 0492

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

VERSUS

TEXAS BRINE COMPANY, LLC

Judgment Rendered ISEP 2 7 2919

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
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,
AIG Specialty Insurance Company
Nichole M. Gray solely in its capacity as an alleged
Chad J. Mollere insurer of Adams Resources
New Orleans, LA Exploration Corporation)

BEFORE: HIGGINBOTHAM, PENZATO, AND LANIER, JJ.

HIGGINBOTHAM, J.

Texas Brine Company, LLC, appeals a September 27, 2017 judgment

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

Specialty Insurance Company (" AIG Specialty"), as an alleged insurer of Adams

Resources Exploration Corporation (" Adams").' That judgment dismissed " any

and all claims, demands, and/ or allegations asserted by [ Texas Brine] against [ AIG

Specialty] ... 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.

The history of this litigation has been repeated multiple times in many

appeals and will not be reiterated herein. 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, 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).

AIG Specialty Insurance Company was formerly known as Chartis Specialty Insurance
Company, which was also previously known as American International Specialty Lines
Insurance Company and American International Surplus Lines Insurance Company, both of
which were previously known as AISLIC.
2

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. Moreover, this court

recently dismissed appeals for the same reason in two other matters that control the

disposition of this appeal. See Pontchartrain Natural Gas System, et al v. Texas

Brine Company, LLC, 2018- 0419 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 6/ 26/ 19), So. 3d ,

2019 WL 2609034, * 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.

CONCLUSION

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

Rule 2- 16. 2A( 1) and ( 2), dismissing this appeal for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction and finding that the disposition is clearly controlled by case law
precedent. Further, we deny the parties' joint motion to dismiss this appeal as

moot.
Because we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, we pretermit ruling

2
Additionally, while we acknowledge the filing of the parties' joint motion to summarily dismiss
this appeal as moot, we note that the district court' s subsequent judgment rendered after the
liability trial is currently the subject of multiple appeals that are pending before this court and has
not yet acquired the authority of a thing adjudged. Therefore, we deny the joint motion to
dismiss the appeal sub judice as moot. See La. Code Civ. P. arts. 2166 and 2167. See also

Pontchartrain Natural Gas System v. Texas Brine Company, LLC, 2018- 0360 ( La. App. 1st
Cir. 7/ 3/ 19), So. 3d , 2019 WL 2865129, * 1.

3

on all other pending motions and the show cause order issued in connection with

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

APPEAL DISMISSED; JOINT MOTION TO DISMISS AS MOOT
DENIED; RULINGS ON ALL OTHER PENDING MOTIONS AND SHOW
CAUSE ORDER PRETERMITTED.

rd