Steve Crooks, Et Al. v. State Of Louisiana, Department Of Natural Resources

Supreme Court of Louisiana
June 25, 2024
Chief Deputy Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
STEVE CROOKS, ET AL.
VS.
STATE OF LOUISIANA, DEPARTMENT
OF NATURAL RESOURCES
No. 2024-C-00432
_ _
_ _ _ _
IN
RE: Dennis Breland, et al. - Applicant Plaintiff; Applying For Writ Of Certiorari,
Parish of Rapides, 9th Judicial District Court Number(s) 224,262, Court of Appeal,
Third Circuit, Number(s) 23-478;
_ _ _ _ _ _
June 25, 2024
Writ application granted. See per curiam.
Weimer, C.J., would grant and docket.
JDH
SJC
JTG
WJC
JBM
PDG
06/25/2024 "See News Release 030 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

1
SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
No. 2024-C-00432
STEVE CROOKS, ET AL.
VS.
STATE OF LOUISIANA, DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
On Writ of Certiorari to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of Rapides
PER CURIAM
Writ granted. Following the 2015 bench trial in this class action litigation, the
district court issued written reasons for judgment, rendering judgment in favor of the
class. Specifically, the district court recognized the class members as the owners of
certain property , and that the class was entitled to damages in the amount of
$42,990,548.08, comprised of $38,296,238.70 in expropriation damages , and
$4,694,309.68 in past oil and gas royalty payments collected by the State, with
judicial interest thereon from the date of judicial demand until paid. The reasons for
judgment also cast the State to pay all court costs associated with the case, including
attorneys’ fees and plaintiffs’ expert witness fees ; the court reserved the issue of
fixing those amounts for determination after a post-trial contradictory hearing.1 In
separate written reasons for judgment on those issues, the district court found that “a
correct application of the appropriate factors in the instant matter dictates the court’s
conclusion that an award of one -third of the total recovery including inter est is
eminently reasonable and consistent with the contingency fee agreement in this
case.” As such, based on a total award of $66,227,531.45,2 the district court awarded
1 The parties ultimately waived a contradictory hearing on the cost issue and submitted the matter
on the record, written argument, and supporting documentation.
2 The total amount of the judgement ($42,990,548.08) with interest through the date of the trial
amounted to $66,227,531.45.
06/25/24

2

the class $22,075,843.82 in attorneys’ fees.3 Thereafter, on May 17, 2017, a written
judgment was executed that incorporated the court’s rulings on the merits of
plaintiffs’ claims, as well as its awards of attorneys’ fees and other litigation costs.
On appeal, however, this court found the inverse condemnation claims prescribed
and therefore reversed the award of expropriation damages, resulting in a significant
reduction of plaintiffs’ recovery.4 Crooks v. Dept. of Natural Resources, 19-0160
(La. 1/29/20), 340 So.3d 574, opinion corrected on r’hing, (La. 4/9/20).
Following this court’s ruling, some of the class members retained separate
counsel and filed a motion, seeking a reduction of the attorneys’ fees proportionate
with the reduction of their overall recovery. However, finding that res judicata
applies and prevents revisiting the attorneys’ fees awarded in the May 17, 2017 final
judgment, the lower courts denied applicants’ motion. In so ruling, the court of
appeal found that the parties involved in the current motion were involved in the
prior litigation of the matter, and therefore the parties involved are the same, thereby
satisfying that requisite element of res judicata. It is noted that the issue of fixing
the amount of attorneys’ fees was reserved by the district court for determination
separately, after the trial, and that the issue presented herein did not arise until after
this court’s reversal of the lion’s share of plaintiffs’ recovery. As it stands, the class
is liable for $22,075,843.82 in attorneys’ fees although they ultimately only
recovered damages in the amount of $4,694,309.68, plus interest, derived from past
due mineral royalties.5

3 The attorneys’ fee award of $22,075,843.82 equates to exactly 1/3 of the total damages with
interest.

4 The LASC’s decision decreased the total pre -interest award from $42,990,548.08 to
$4,694,309.68.

5 Plaintiffs also obtained judgment recognizing their ownership of the real property involved. The
trial judge originally allocated damages 75% to the inverse condemnation claims and 25% to the
royalties/ownership issue.

3
As the district court correctly noted in its reasons for judgment,
“[r]easonableness is the touchstone for the amount of the award of attorney
fees,” pursuant to Rule 1.5(a) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. It is further
noted that LSA-C.C. art. 595(A) states as follows:
The court may allow the representative parties their reasonable
expenses of litigation, including attorney's fees, when as a result of the
class action a fund is made available, or a recovery or compromise is
had which is beneficial, to the class.
As such, in light of the significant reduction in the overall damages ultimately
awarded to the class in this case, this matter is remanded to the district court for a
hearing to determine a reasonable attorney fee, pursuant to LSA-C.C. art. 595.
WRIT GRANTED; REMANDED.