Noretta Thomas v. A. Wilbert & Sons, Inc., L.L.C. and XYZ Insurance Company

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

NORETTA THOMAS AND DEMETRICE NO. 2025 CW 0610
BUTLER, EACH INDIVIDUALLY, AND ON

BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY PAGE 1 OF 2
SITUATED

VERSUS

A. WILBERT & SONS, INC., L.L.C.
AND XYZ INSURANCE COMPANY

CONSOLIDATED WITH

TROY ROBICHAUX, SHANNON
ROBICHAUX, MICHAEL J. TUMINELLO,
SR., AND OLIVE D. TUMINELLO

VERSUS

STATE OF LOUISIANA, THROUGH THE

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND NOVEMBER 5, 2025
HOSPITALS AND THROUGH THE

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL

QUALITY AND DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY

In Re: Troy Robichaux, et al., applying for supervisory writs,
18th Judicial District Court, Parish of Iberville, No.
55127 c/w 56803.

BEFORE: MILLER, STROMBERG, EDWARDS, BALFOUR, AND FIELDS, JJ.

WRIT GRANTED WITH ORDER. In Yhomas v. A. Wilbert & Sons,
LLC, 2015-0928 (La. App. lst Cir. 2/10/17), 217 So.3d 368, 394,
writs denied, 2017-0952 (La. 11/13/17), 229 So.3d 478 and 2017-
0967 (La. 11/13/17), 230 So.3d 204, this court noted “the evidence
presented to the trial court supports the [initial cost estimate
of $3.2 million.] .. [A]s provided in the statute, the amount of
the initial deposit is merely an estimate. The Groundwater Act
provides the trial court with continuing jurisdiction to require
future deposits to cover additional costs when and if needed /,]”
until such time as remediation is completed. See La. R.S.
30:2015.1(E). Plaintiffs’ motion fits within the parameters of
La. R.S. 30:2015.1 and the district court’s Jurisdiction as
contemplated in Thomas. The district court remains an active
participant in the entire restoration process. M.J. Farms, Ltd.
v. Exxon Mobil Corporation, 2007-2371 (La. 7/1/08), 998 So.2d 16,
37-38 (amended on rehearing). The district court’s February 28,
2025 judgment which denied plaintiffs’ motion for new trial and/or
reconsideration is reversed and that motion is granted. This
matter is remanded to the district court to consider the merits of
plaintiffs’ motion.

SMM
TPS

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

NO. 2025 CW 0610

PAGE 2 OF 2

Edwards, J., concurs. The district court retained
jurisdiction over this action, pursuant to La. R.S. 30:2015.1,
which provides that a court shall retain jurisdiction over the
funds deposited and the party or parties found legally responsible
by the court until such time as the remediation is completed. That
jurisdiction specifically extends to the funds deposited.
Plaintiffs filed this motion, in part, seeking an increase in the
deposit, which the district court had jurisdiction to address.
Moreover, since the district court adopted the remediation plan at
issue herein and ordered regular reporting to it on the progress
of the remedy, the district court maintained its continuing
jurisdiction over this matter.

Fields, J., dissents. I note the district court’s May 22,
2013 judgment, which was affirmed by this court, Thomas v. A.
Wilbert & Sons, LLC, 2015-0928 (La. App. Ist Cir. 2/10/17), 217
So.3d 368, writs denied, 2017-0952 (La. 11/13/17), 229 So.3d 478
and 2017-0967 (La. 11/13/17), 230 So.3d 204, specifically retained
jurisdiction over this action pursuant to La. R.S. 30:2015.1, which
provides that a court shall retain jurisdiction over the funds
deposited and the party or parties found legally responsible by
the court until such time as the remediation is completed.
However, the district court’s May 22, 2013 judgment further
declared that the decisions of the governmental agencies,
Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality and United States
Environmental Protection Agency, concerning the remedy and
implementation of the remedy are entitled to deference. Moreover,
La. R.S. 30:2015.1(K) provides the Department of Environmental
Quality shall establish rules and procedures for the modification
of plans for remediation.

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

(\ FOR THE COURT