Superior Trucking, LLC v. Sasol Chemicals, LLC

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

CA 21-797 consolidated with CA 21-798

MAYEHAUL TRUCKING, LLC, ET AL.

VERSUS

SASOL CHEMICALS LLC, ET AL.

C/W

SUPERIOR TRUCKING, LLC, ET AL.

VERSUS

SASOL CHEMICALS, LLC

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
FOURTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF CALCASIEU, NO. 2016-2356 C/W 2016-5163
HONORABLE KENDRICK J. GUIDRY, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

JOHN E. CONERY

JUDGE

**********

Court composed of John E. Conery, D. Kent Savoie, and Gary J. Ortego, Judges.

MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL DENIED.

Roger G. Burgess
Wells T. Watson
Jake D. Buford
Baggett, McCall, Burgess, Watson & Gaughan, L.L.C.
Post Office Drawer 7820
Lake Charles, LA 70605
(337) 478-8888
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT:
Mayehaul Trucking, LLC, et al.

Todd S. Clemons
Todd Clemons & Associates
1740 Ryan Street
Lake Charles, LA 70601
(337) 477-0000
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS/APPELLEES:
Gerald L. Smith
Tyler Smith
Roosevelt “Tiger” Canty
Kent & Smith Holdings, LLC

La’Ketha W. Holmes
Post Office Box 839
Oberlin, LA 70655
(337) 639-2641
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS/APPELLEES:
Gerald L. Smith
Tyler Smith
Roosevelt “Tiger” Canty
Kent & Smith Holdings, LLC

Marshall J. Simien, Jr.
The Sanctuary
2131-A Fitzenreiter Road
Lake Charles, LA 70601
(337) 497-0022
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS/APPELLEES:
Sasol Chemicals, LLC
Sasol Chemicals North America, LLC

Carroll Devillier, Jr.
Danielle L. Borel
Candace B. Ford
Breazeale, Sachse & Wilson, L.L.P.
Post Office Box 3197
Baton Rouge, LA 70821-3197
(225) 387-4000
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS/APPELLEES:
K & S Logistics, LLC
Kent Materials
Kent & Smith Holdings, LLC
Michael Hayes

CONERY, Judge.

On February 1, 2022, Defendants-Appellees, Kent Materials and/or Kent &

Smith Holdings, LLC, K&S Brokerage d/b/a K&S Logistics, Gerard L. Smith,

Tyler Smith, and Roosevelt “Tiger” Canty, filed a Motion and Order for Dismissal

of Appeal as Abandoned in accordance with La.Code Civ.P. art. 2162. For the

reasons stated herein, we deny the motion.

The instant appeal was filed by Plaintiffs-Appellants, Mayehaul Trucking,

LLC; F&S Trucking, LLC; B&M Dumping, LLC; JMK Trucking, LLC; KJJ

Trucking, LLC; Calcasieu Trucking, LLC; James Crew Trucking, LLC; Jimmy

Comeaux d/b/a Comeaux’s Dump Truck Service; Allen Jay Handy d/b/a JHandy

Hauling; Charles and Elijah Goodwin d/b/a Goodwin Trucking; BBT Construction

Management, LLC; Loris Ausama d/b/a L.O. Ausama Enterprises, Inc.; Superior

Trucking of LC, LLC; Big Daddy Dumping, LLC; P&L Roofing and Construction,

LLC; D&G Enterprises, Inc. of LC; Clifton Johnson d/b/a Johnson Trucking;

Exodus Trucking, LLC; and Quality Trucking Services of LC, LLC. In their

Notice of Appeal and Request for Return Date, Plaintiffs-Appellants seek to appeal

the trial court’s October 12, 2021 judgment granting the Peremptory Exception of

No Right of Action filed by Defendants-Appellees (Kent Exception Judgment) and

the December 13, 2021 judgment granting the Peremptory Exception of No Right

of Action/No Cause of Action filed by SASOL Chemicals, LLC and/or SASOL

Chemicals North America, LLC, and Michael Hayes (SASOL Defendants

Exception Judgment).

Defendants-Appellants assert that in Plaintiffs’-Appellants’ brief filed in this

court, they only appealed the Sasol Defendants’ Exception Judgment of December

13, 2021. A review of the brief indicates that Plaintiffs-Appellants set forth three

assignments of error, all of which are directed at the Sasol Defendants’ Exception

Judgment, only. There are no assignments of error related to the Kent Exception

Judgment. Pursuant to Uniform Rules—Courts of Appeal, Rule 2-12.4(B)(4),

“[a]ll assignments of error and issues for review must be briefed. The court may

consider as abandoned any assignment of error or issue for review which has not

been briefed.” Accordingly, we deem the issue of the Kent Exception Judgment

rendered on October 12, 2021, to be abandoned.

Next, pursuant to La.Code Civ.P. art. 2162, Defendants-Appellees argue that

the instant appeal should be dismissed as it pertains to them and the Kent

Exception Judgment of October 12, 2021. Article 2162 provides that “[a]n appeal

can be dismissed . . . if, under the rules of the appellate court, the appeal has been

abandoned.” Defendants-Appellees subsequently pray that an order be issued

herein dismissing, with prejudice, the instant appeal as it pertains to Defendants-

Appellees.

We find that the remedy sought by Defendants-Appellees for Plaintiffs’-

Appellants’ failure to brief an issue is not provided for in Article 2162. Plaintiffs-

Appellants have abandoned an argument on appeal, not the appeal itself.

Accordingly, we deny the motion to dismiss the appeal filed by Defendants-

Appellees.

MOTION TO DIMISS APPEAL DENIED.

THIS OPINION IS NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION.
Uniform Rules―Courts of Appeal, Rule 2-16.3.

2