Basket Specialties, LLC v. Superior Energy Services, Inc.

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

CA 26-82

BASKET SPECIALTIES, LLC

VERSUS

SUPERIOR ENERGY SERVICES, INC., ET AL.

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF LAFAYETTE, NO. 20234524
HONORABLE DAVID MICHAEL SMITH, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

SHANNON GREMILLION

JUDGE

**********

Court composed of Shannon Gremillion, Sharon Darville Wilson, and Ledricka J.
Thierry, Judges.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

Michael Warren Mengis
Sushant Mohan
Ashlee Cassman Grant
Baker & Hostetler, LLP
811 Main St., Suite 1100
Houston, TX 77002
(713) 646-1330
(713) 751-1600
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTS:
Superior Energy Services, Inc.
Stabil Drill Specialties, LLC

Thomas M. Daigle
Victor R. A. Ashy
711 Johnston Street
Lafayette, LA 70501
(337) 234-4049
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE:
Basket Specialties, LLC

Andrew J. Quackenbos
James H. Domengeaux, Jr.
Domengeaux, Wright, Roy
556 Jefferson St., Ste. 500
Lafayette, LA 70501
(337) 233-3033
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE:
Basket Specialties, LLC

Gremillion, Judge.

On February 6, 2026, this court issued a rule ordering the Defendants-

Appellants, Superior Energy Services, Inc. and Stabil Drill Specialties, LLC, to show

cause, by brief only, why the appeal in this matter should not be dismissed as having

been taken from a non-appealable, interlocutory order. For the reasons given herein,

we dismiss the appeal.

This matter involves a dispute over oilfield cargo baskets. Plaintiff, Basket

Specialties, LLC, the purported owner of the baskets, has sued Defendants-Appellants

for conversion, alleging Appellants did not return the baskets which were rented from

Basket Specialties. Appellants filed exceptions of res judicata and no cause of action

below, claiming the baskets were involved in a prior suit and two settlements in Texas

regarding a double-dealing scheme by Chris Russo, who was chief operating officer

of Appellant Stabil, as well as the owner/operator of Basket Specialties. The trial

court found that prior litigation dealt with fraud committed by Mr. Russo, and not the

ownership of the baskets, and denied the exceptions. Appellants then filed the current

appeal from that decision.

“[A]ppellate courts have a duty to examine subject matter jurisdiction sua

sponte.” Lewis v. Hart, 17-24, p.6 (La.App. 3 Cir. 5/17/17), 221 So.3d 152, 157.

Pursuant to La.Code Civ.P. art. 2083, our appellate jurisdiction extends to final

judgments and to those limited interlocutory judgments for which the law expressly

provides an appeal. The judgment at issue denies Appellants’ exceptions of res

judicata and no cause of action. A judgment denying an exception of res judicata “is

interlocutory and is not appealable.” Laird v. Laird, 46,459, p. 11 (La.App. 2 Cir.

6/22/11), 69 So.3d 1173, 1179. See also La.Code Civ.P. art. 927. Likewise, the

peremptory exception of no cause of action is also interlocutory, and the proper

procedural vehicle to review the judgment denying those exceptions was a

supervisory writ. Waiters v. deVille, 20-556 (La.App. 4 Cir. 12/30/20), 365 So.3d 544,

writ denied, 21-283 (La. 4/13/21), 313 So.3d 1249. Because the judgment plaintiff

appeals herein is neither a final judgment nor an expressly appealable interlocutory

judgment, we lack appellate jurisdiction. Moreover, Appellants have, in fact, also

filed for supervisory writs from the exact judgment at issue, as well as filing the

current appeal. Thus, Appellants will have review of the challenged judgment via that

avenue, rendering this appeal redundant, as well as improper. Accordingly, this

appeal must be dismissed.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

2