Full text
Assumption Parish Police Jury v. Texas Brine Company, L.L.C., and Occidental Chemical Corporation
STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL
FIRST CIRCUIT
NO. 2018 CA 1626
ASSUMPTION PARISH POLICE JURY
I VERSUS
TEXAS BRINE COMPANY, L.L.C. AND OCCIDENTAL CHEMICAL CORPORATION
CONSOLIDATED WITH
NO. 2018 CA 1627
ASSUMPTION PARISH SHERIFF MIKE WAGUESPACK
Y VERSUS
TEXAS BRINE COMPANY, L.L.C. AND OCCIDENTAL CHEMICAL CORPORATION
CONSOLIDATED WITH
NO. 2018 CA 1628
STATE OF LOUISIANA
VERSUS
TEXAS BRINE COMPANY, L.L.C. AND OCCIDENTAL CHEMICAL CORPORATION
Judgment Rendered. JUN 2 4 2020
Appealed from the 23rd Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of Assumption State of Louisiana Case Nos. 34386, 34389, 34391
The Honorable Thomas Kliebert, Jr., Judge Presiding
Leopold Z. Sher Counsel for Appellant James M. Garner Texas Brine Company, L.L.C. Peter L. Hilbert, Jr. Jeffrey D. Kessler New Orleans, Louisiana
Robert Ryland Percy, III Gonzales, Louisiana
James E. Kuhn Ponchatoula, Louisiana
Eric J. Mayer Houston, Texas
Travis J. Turner Gonzales, Louisiana
Dane S. Ciolino Metairie, Louisiana
Theodore L. Jones Baton Rouge, Louisiana
Joseph L. Shea, Jr. Counsel for Appellee Katherine Smith Baker Reliance Petroleum Corporation
Ashley G. Gable Joshua S. Chevallier Shreveport, Louisiana
Matthew J. Randazzo, III Counsel for Appellees
Christopher B. Bailey Browning Oil Company, Inc., Will Montz LORCA Corporation and Colorado Shawn A. Carter Crude Company Joshua S. Barnhill Lafayette, Louisiana
Erika L. Bright Jeffrey L. Mills Dallas, Texas
Franklin H. Spruiell, Jr. Counsel for Appellee Reid A. Jones Sol Kirschner Seth M. Moyers Shreveport, Louisiana
BEFORE: GUIDRY, THERIOT, AND PENZATO, JJ. *3
THERIOT, J.
This appeal is one of many arising from the Bayou Come sinkhole that developed on August 3, 2012, following the collapse of a salt mine cavern connected with the operation of a brine production well known as the Oxy Geismer 3 by defendant/ third-party plaintiff, Texas Brine Company, LLC (" Texas Brine"). Herein, Texas Brine challenges the district court judgment sustaining the peremptory exceptions of res judicata and collateral estoppel filed by Reliance Petroleum Corporation, LORCA Corporation, Colorado Crude Company, Sol Kirschner, and Browning Oil Company, Inc. ( collectively, " the Oil and Gas Parties") and dismissing its claims against the Oil and Gas Parties with prejudice.
In response to the claims asserted against it in the Pipeline cases', Texas Brine filed nearly identical third -party demands against various parties therein, as well as in the instant litigation. Following the district court' s summary dismissal of Texas Brine' s third -party demands against the Oil & Gas Parties in the Pipeline cases, the Oil and Gas Parties filed separate, but identical, peremptory exceptions of res judicata and collateral estoppel in the underlying litigation. The district court sustained the Oil and Gas Parties' exceptions, issuing a signed judgment on April 10, 2018, ordering that " Texas Brine Company, LLC' s claims against the Oil and Gas Parties in the above -captioned matter are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE on the basis of res judicata and collateral estoppel."
The same issues before us in the instant appeal were recently decided by this court in related appeals, Marchand v. Texas Brine Company, LLC, 2019- 0052 La.App. 1 Cir. 12/ 27/ 19), So. 3d , 2019 WL 7206880, and Labarre v. Occidental Chemical Company, 2019- 0624 ( La.App. 1 Cir. 2/ 19/ 20), 2020 WL
1 The Pipeline cases were several of many arising from the 2012 sinkhole and include: Crosstex Energy Services, LP v. Texas Brine Company, LLC, No. 34, 202, 23`d Judicial District Court, Assumption Parish; Pontchartrain Natural Gas System v. Texas Brine Company, LLC, No. 34,265, 23 d Judicial District Court, Assumption Parish; and Florida Gas Transmission Company v. Texas Brine Company, LLC, No. 34, 316, 23`d Judicial District Court, Assumption Parish.
813269. In Marchand and Labarre, this court affirmed similar judgments granting the Oil and Gas Parties' peremptory exceptions of res judicata and collateral estoppel. After a thorough review of the record, we find no material distinctions between the evidence and arguments asserted in this appeal and those presented in Marchand and Labarre. The exact same background, issues, and assignments of error raised by Texas Brine in this case have already been thoroughly discussed in Marchand, which we are bound to follow under the " law of the circuit doctrine," which requires us to follow our prior decisions. See Pontchartrain Natural Gas System v. Texas Brine Company, LLC, 2018- 0001, p. 2 ( La.App. 1 Cir. 6/ 4/ 18), 253 So. 3d 156 ( Mem), writ denied, 2018- 1124 ( La. 9/ 28/ 18), 253 So. 3d 147 Mem). Moreover, the summary dismissal of Texas Brine' s third -party demands against the Oil and Gas Parties in the related Pipeline cases, which formed the basis of the Oil and Gas Parties' res judicata and collateral estoppel objections, has been affirmed on appellate review.2
We issue this summary disposition in accordance with Uniform Rules of Louisiana Courts of Appeal, Rule 2- 16. 2( A)(2), ( 4), and ( 6), and affirm the district court' s April 10, 2018 judgment, sustaining the exceptions raising the objections of res judicata and collateral estoppel and dismissing, with prejudice, Texas Brine' s third -party demands against Reliance Petroleum Corporation, LORCA
2 See Pontchartrain Natural Gas System v. Texas Brine Company, LLC, 2018- 0606 ( La.App. 1 Cir. 12/ 21/ 18), 268 So. 3d 1058, writ denied, 2019- 0526 ( La. 6/ 17/ 19), 273 So. 3d 1210 ( Mem); Crosstex Energy Services, LP v. Texas Brine Company, LLC, 2018- 0749 ( La.App. 1 Cir. 2/ 27/ 19), 2019 WL 969564 ( unpublished); Florida Gas Transmission Company, LLC v. Texas Brine Company, LLC, 2018- 0549 ( La.App. 1 Cir. 7/ 1/ 19), 2019 WL 2723560 ( unpublished), writ denied, 2019- 01227 ( La. 10/ 15/ 19), 280 So. 3d 611 ( Mem); Crosstex Energy Services, LP v. Texas Brine Company, LLC, 2018- 1213 ( La.App. 1 Cir. 7/ 11/ 19), 2019 WL 3049762 unpublished), writ denied, 2019- 01126 ( La. 7/ 17/ 19), 277 So. 3d 1180 ( Mem); Pontchartrain Natural Gas System v. Texas Brine Company, LLC, 2018- 1170 ( La.App. 1 Cir. 11/ 15/ 19), So. 3d 2019 WL 6044633 ( Mem); Florida Gas Transmission Company, LLC v. Texas Brine Company, LLC, 2018- 1778 ( La.App. 1 Cir. 12/ 27/ 19), So. 3d , 2019 WL 7206876 Mem); Pontchartrain Natural Gas System v. Texas Brine Company, LLC, 2018- 0631 ( La.App. 1 Cir. 7/ 3/ 19), 281 So. 3d 1, writ denied, 2019- 01423 ( La. 11/ 12/ 19), 282 So. 3d 224 ( Mem); Florida Gas Transmission Company, LLC v. Texas Brine Company, LLC, 2018- 0842 ( La.App. 1 Cir. 8/ 5/ 19), 2019 WL 3561807 ( unpublished); Crosstex Energy Services, LP v. Texas Brine Company, LLC, 2018- 0900 ( La.App. 1 Cir. 8/ 5/ 19), 2019 WL 3561759 ( unpublished).
Corporation, Colorado Crude Company, Sol Kirschner, and Browning Oil Company, Inc. All costs of this appeal are assessed to Texas Brine Company,
LLC.
AFFIRMED.
R