Opinion
NO. 2022 CA 1273
06-01-2023
FLORIDA GAS TRANSMISSION COMPANY, LLC v. TEXAS BRINE COMPANY, LLC
Leopold Z. Sher, James M. Gamer, Peter L. Hilbert, Jr., Christopher T. Chocheles, New Orleans, Louisiana -and-Travis J. Turner, Gonzales, Louisiana -and-Ulysses Gene Thibodeaux, Lake Charles, Louisiana, Attorneys for Appellant/Third-Party Plaintiff Texas Brine Company, LLC Roy C. Cheatwood, Kent A. Lambert, Adam B. Zuckerman, Leopoldo J. Yanez, Matthew C. Juneau, Colleen C. Jarrott, Lauren Brink Adams, New Orleans, Louisiana, Attorneys for Appellee/Third-Party Defendant Legacy Vulcan, LLC
Leopold Z. Sher, James M. Gamer, Peter L. Hilbert, Jr., Christopher T. Chocheles, New Orleans, Louisiana -and-Travis J. Turner, Gonzales, Louisiana -and-Ulysses Gene Thibodeaux, Lake Charles, Louisiana, Attorneys for Appellant/Third-Party Plaintiff Texas Brine Company, LLC
Roy C. Cheatwood, Kent A. Lambert, Adam B. Zuckerman, Leopoldo J. Yanez, Matthew C. Juneau, Colleen C. Jarrott, Lauren Brink Adams, New Orleans, Louisiana, Attorneys for Appellee/Third-Party Defendant Legacy Vulcan, LLC
BEFORE: PENZATO, HESTER, AND GREENE, JJ.
HESTER, J. This dispute is one of many arising out of the August 2012 sinkhole that appeared near Bayou Come in Assumption Parish, Louisiana. In this appeal, Texas Brine Company, LLC ("Texas Brine") challenges a May 5, 2022 judgment granting a partial summary judgment in favor of Legacy Vulcan, LLC ("Legacy Vulcan") and against Texas Brine, dismissing Texas Brine's contractual claim against Legacy Vulcan under the Assignment of Salt Lease. For the following reasons, we dismiss this appeal and remand the matter to the trial court.
In related appeals, this court considered identical judgments originating out of different trial court numbers (Docket Numbers 34,265 and 34,202, 23rd Judicial District Court, Assumption Parish) rendered by the same trial court, on the same date, concerning the same parties, which were also certified as final under La. Code Civ. P. art. 1915(B). See Pontchartrain Natural Gas System v. Texas Brine Company, LLC, 2022-1001 (La. App. 1st Cir. 3/1/23), 362 So.3d 952 and Crosstex Energy Services, LP v. Texas Brine Company, LLC, 2022-1040 (La. App. 1st Cir. 3/23/23), 362 So.3d 1263.
The appeal in Pontchartrain was dismissed after a different panel of this court determined that subject matter jurisdiction did not exist. Pontchartrain, 362 So.3d at 957. Specifically, this court concluded that the May 5, 2022 partial summary judgment did not meet the requirements of an appealable judgment under La. C.C.P. art. 1915(B) and R.J. Messinger, Inc. v. Rosenblum, 2004-1664 (La. 3/2/05), 894 So.2d 1113. Id. Although Texas Brine and Legacy Vulcan entered into several interdependent contracts, the issue on appeal was limited to Texas Brine's claim against Legacy Vulcan for breach of the parties’ Assignment of Salt Lease. Pontchartrain, 362 So.3d at 956-57. Therefore, any decision by this court on this limited claim, "without consideration of the remaining interdependent contracts and claims thereupon, would merely result in inefficient, piecemeal, and possibly conflicting resolution of only a minor part of the parties’ related contract claims." Id. (citing Pontchartrain Natural Gas System v. Texas Brine Company, LLC, 2022-0738 (La. App. 1st Cir. 12/29/22), 360 So.3d 874, 879 ). See also La. Civ. Code art. 2053 ("A doubtful provision [in a contract] must be interpreted in light of the nature of the contract, equity, usages, the conduct of the parties before and after the formation of the contract, and of other contracts of a like nature between the same parties ." (Emphasis added.))
In Crosstex, 362 So.3d at 1264, this court determined that no material distinctions existed between the judgment and issues presented in Crosstex and those presented in Pontchartrain, 362 So.3d 1263, and that the Crosstex judgment did not meet the requirements of a final appealable judgment under La. Code Civ. P. art. 1915(B) and Messinger, 894 So.2d at 1122. Finding that this court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the appeal, the appeal was dismissed and the matter remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. Crosstex, 362 So.3d at 1263–64.
Similarly, a thorough review of the record in the present appeal reveals no material distinctions between the judgments and issues presented in this appeal and those presented in Crosstex, 362 So.3d 1263, and Pontchartrain, 362 So.3d 952. For the reasons explicitly set forth in Pontchartrain, 362 So.3d at 956–57, and adopted in Crosstex, 362 So.3d at 1264, we find the May 5, 2022 judgment at issue in this appeal does not meet the requirements of a final appealable judgment under La. Code Civ. P. art. 1915(B) and Messinger, 894 So.2d at 1122. Therefore, we lack subject matter jurisdiction over this appeal.
We dismiss the appeal and remand the matter to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. This summary disposition is issued in accordance with Uniform Rules - Courts of Appeal, Rule 2-16.2(A)(1), (2), (4), and (6). All costs of this appeal are assessed equally between Texas Brine Company, LLC and Legacy Vulcan, LLC.
Legacy Vulcan's motion to dismiss the appeal is denied as moot in light of our disposition of this matter.