Opinion
NO. 2022 CA 0951
04-14-2023
CROSSTEX ENERGY SERVICES, LP, Crosstex Lig, LLC and Crosstex Processing Services, LLC v. TEXAS BRINE COMPANY, LLC, et al.
Leopold Z. Sher, James M. Gamer, Peter L. Hilbert, Jr., Martha Curtis, Jeffrey D. Kessler, New Orleans, Louisiana,-and- Robert R. Percy III, Gonzales, Louisiana,-and- Travis J. Turner, Gonzales, Louisiana Attorneys for Appellant, Texas Brine Company Martin A. Stem, Leigh A. Schell, Raymond P. Ward, Sara C. Valentine, New Orleans, Louisiana,-and- Kathy Patrick, Samuel W. Cruse III, Laura K. Cassidy, Caitlin Halpern, Houston, Texas Attorneys for Appellee, Occidental Chemical Corporation
Leopold Z. Sher, James M. Gamer, Peter L. Hilbert, Jr., Martha Curtis, Jeffrey D. Kessler, New Orleans, Louisiana,-and- Robert R. Percy III, Gonzales, Louisiana,-and- Travis J. Turner, Gonzales, Louisiana Attorneys for Appellant, Texas Brine Company
Martin A. Stem, Leigh A. Schell, Raymond P. Ward, Sara C. Valentine, New Orleans, Louisiana,-and- Kathy Patrick, Samuel W. Cruse III, Laura K. Cassidy, Caitlin Halpern, Houston, Texas Attorneys for Appellee, Occidental Chemical Corporation
BEFORE: HESTER, MILLER, AND GREENE, JJ.
HESTER, J.
This dispute is one of many arising out of the August 2012 sinkhole that appeared near Bayou Corne in Assumption Parish, Louisiana. In this appeal, Texas Brine Company, LLC ("Texas Brine") challenges a March 25, 2021 judgment dismissing Texas Brine's petition to annul an appellate court judgment rendered by this court on July 1, 2019, in docket number 2018 CA 0796, on the basis that the appeal was not randomly allotted as required by Louisiana law. Occidental Chemical Corporation ("Oxy") filed an answer to the appeal seeking modification of other rulings in the judgment.
In a related appeal, this court recently considered an identical judgment originating from a different trial court number rendered by the same trial court, on the same date, concerning the same parties. See Pontchartrain Natural Gas System v. Texas Brine Co., LLC, 2022-0990 (La. App. 1st Cir. 3/16/23), 363 So.3d 543 (Docket Number 34,265, 23 rd Judicial District Court, Assumption Parish). The trial court judgment at issue in Pontchartrain, 363 So.3d at 545–46, also dismissed Texas Brine's petition to annul an appellate court judgment rendered by this court on July 1, 2019, but in docket number 2018 CA 0241. This court found no error or abuse of discretion in the trial court's dismissal of Texas Brine's nullity action Oxy seeking to annul this court's judgment in docket number 2018 CA 0241 and further found that Oxy presented a compelling argument for an award of reasonable attorney fees for successfully defending the appeal, awarding Oxy $5,000.00 in attorney fees for work performed defending the appeal in Pontchartrain . Pontchartrain, 363 So.3d at 549–50.
As noted in Pontchartrain , 363 So.3d at 545–46, this court rendered a judgment regarding the salt lease confusion issue in three pipeline cases that were consolidated by this court's order on September 20, 2018, and decided on July 1, 2019. See Crosstex Energy Services, LP v. Texas Brine Co., LLC , 2018 CA 0796, and Pontchartrain Natural Gas System v. Texas Brine Co., LLC , 2018 CA 0241, consolidated with and into Florida Gas Transmission Co., LLC v. Texas Brine Co., LLC , 2018 CA 0075. See Florida Gas Transmission Co., LLC v. Texas Brine Co., LLC , 2018-0075 (La. App. 1st Cir. 7/1/19), 285 So.3d 1093, 1101, writs denied, 2019-01124 (La. 7/17/19), 277 So.3d 1180 and 2019-01405 (La. 11/12/19), 282 So.3d 225. Texas Brine attacked the judgment issued in the consolidated appeals of Florida Gas Transmission Co. , 285 So.3d 1093, as a nullity in Pontchartrain , 363 So.3d at 545–46, and also attacks the same judgment as a nullity in the present case.
However, while the current matter was still pending before this court, the parties filed a joint motion to dismiss the appeal and answer to appeal with prejudice, advising that the parties to the appeal agreed to dismiss the appeal and answer. We note that Rule 2-8.3 of the Uniform Rules of the Courts of Appeal provides that any appeal may be summarily dismissed where there has been a joint motion filed by all interested parties or their counsel of record, which shall set forth the reason for such action and be supported by appropriate affidavits that the facts alleged are true and correct. In this case, the joint motion to dismiss filed by the parties fails to comply with Rule 2-8.3 as it was not supported by appropriate affidavits that the facts alleged are true and correct. Notwithstanding, courts will not decide abstract, hypothetical or moot controversies, or render advisory opinions with respect to such controversies. Baxter v. Scott, 2003-2013 (La. 11/14/03), 860 So.2d 535, 536 (per curiam).
Similar to Baxter , the parties’ joint motion to dismiss herein put this court on notice that they agreed to dismiss their appeal and answer; therefore, there was no longer a live controversy relative to the March 25, 2021 judgment for this court to resolve. See Baxter, 860 So.2d at 536. Despite the parties’ failure to fully comply with Rule 2-8.3, the signatures of their respective attorneys on the motion indicate they represented the facts contained in the motion were true and correct. See, e.g., La. Code Civ. P. art. 863(B)(2) and (3) (signature of counsel constitutes certification that the pleading is warranted by existing law and has evidentiary support); see also Baxter, So.2d at 536. Under these circumstances, we hereby grant the joint motion to dismiss the appeal and answer to appeal. See Uniform Rules of the Courts of Appeal, Rule 2-16.2(A)(3).
DECREE
For the forgoing reasons, the appeal and answer to appeal are dismissed as moot. All costs of this appeal are assessed equally to Texas Brine Company, LLC and Occidental Chemical Corporation.