Earl A. Adams, Jr. v. Chevron USA, Inc.

EARL A. ADAMS, JR., ET AL. * NO. 2019-CA-0210

VERSUS *
COURT OF APPEAL
CHEVRON USA, INC., ET AL. *
FOURTH CIRCUIT
*
STATE OF LOUISIANA
*******

CONSOLIDATED WITH: CONSOLIDATED WITH:

EARL ADAMS, ET AL NO. 2019-C-0198

VERSUS

CHEVRON USA, INC., ET AL

CONSOLIDATED WITH: CONSOLIDATED WITH:

EARL ADAMS, ET AL NO. 2019-C-0199

VERSUS

CHEVRON USA, INC., ET AL

CONSOLIDATED WITH: CONSOLIDATED WITH:

EARL A. ADAMS, JR., ET AL NO. 2019-C-0708

VERSUS

CHEVRON, U.S.A., ET AL

CONSOLIDATED WITH: CONSOLIDATED WITH:

EARL A. ADAMS, JR., ET AL. NO. 2020-CA-0069

VERSUS

CHEVRON USA, INC.

CONSOLIDATED WITH: CONSOLIDATED WITH:

ELDA LONG, ALTHEA SMART, NO. 2020-CA-0070
EARL HYNES, EDWARD
WILLIAMS, KENNETH
MOUILLE, MALCOLM HARRIS,
JR., AND MERLE MCINTYRE

VERSUS

JOSEPH GREFER AND THE
ESTATE OF CAMILLE GREFER

APPEAL FROM
CIVIL DISTRICT COURT, ORLEANS PARISH
NO. 2002-19308, DIVISION “D”
Honorable Nakisha Ervin-Knott, Judge
******
JAMES F. MCKAY III
CHIEF JUDGE
******
(Court composed of Chief Judge James F. McKay, III, Judge Terri F. Love, Judge
Roland L. Belsome)

ON APPLICATION FOR REHEARING

ROBERT G. HARVEY, SR.
LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT G. HARVEY, SR., APLC
600 North Carrollton Avenue
New Orleans, Louisiana 70119
-and-
DARLEEN MARIE JACOBS
THE LAW OFFICES OF DARLENE M JACOBS
823 St. Louis Street
New Orleans, Louisiana 70112
-and-
ALAN DEAN WEINBERGER
HANGARTNER RYDBERG & TERRELL, LLC
Hancock Whitney Center, Suite 310
New Orleans, Louisiana 70112
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT

PETER N. FREIBERG
KEVIN E. HUDDELL
LINDSAY E. REEVES
CHRISTOPHER W. SWANSON
JONES, SWANSON, HUDDELL & GARRISON, L.L.C.
601 Poydras Street, Suite 2655
New Orleans, Louisiana 70130
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE

REHEARING GRANTED FOR CLARIFICATION

MARCH 31, 2021
2

JFM
TFL
RLB

On February 24, 2021, this Court issued an opinion wherein the issue was

“whether the trial court erred in preventing the plaintiffs from offering evidence of

the intent of the actual settling parties regarding the scope of the settlement and in

dismissing the plaintiffs’ case.” Adams v. Chevron USA, Inc. 19-0210, p. 2

(La.App. 4 Cir. 2/24/21), ___ So.3d ___ , ___ , 2021 WL 717778, *1. In so

determining, we found the following:

In the instant case, it is undisputed that the landowner defendants are
not parties to any settlement agreement with the plaintiffs. It is also
undisputed that the landowner defendants did not contribute to any
settlement agreement with the plaintiffs. As the landowner defendants are
never mentioned in the four corners of any of the settlement agreements, the
only way they could have been dismissed is by reference to something
outside the agreements themselves.
Under these circumstances, the trial court should have considered the
evidence of the intent of the actual parties to the settlement concerning
whether the landowner defendants would or would not be released. To not
do so interdicted the fact-finding process. Therefore, the district court erred
as a matter of law in refusing to allow the plaintiffs an opportunity to offer
evidence of the intent of the settling parties, i.e., a contradictory hearing
where the parties could have called witnesses and introduced other extrinsic
evidence to establish the true intent of the parties to the settlement.
For the above and foregoing reasons, the judgment of the trial court is
reversed and this case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings
consistent with this opinion.

3

Id., 19-0210, pp. 3-4, ___ So.3d at ___ , 2021 WL 717778, *2.

Following the issuance of our opinion, both the appellants and the appellees

filed applications for rehearing seeking clarification as to whether this Court’s

opinion applied to both of the trial court judgments regarding the granting of the

Motions to Enforce Settlement Agreement rendered on September 11, 2018, and

October 11, 2019.

Both applications for rehearing are granted for clarification purposes only.

This court’s February 24, 2021 opinion applied to both the September 11, 2018,

and the October 11, 2019 trial court judgments. This Court’s original judgment

remains unchanged.

REHEARING GRANTED FOR CLARIFICATION

4