Dietz v. Superior Oil Co.
129 So. 3d 836
La. Ct. App.2013Background
- Contamination suit seeks injunctive relief and restoration damages from multiple mineral lessees for soil and groundwater pollution on two non-contiguous Dietz family properties in Acadia Parish.
- Two lease chains involve ExxonMobil, Superior Oil Co., Mobil E&P North America, Big Energy, Torch Energy Services, Jennings Holdings; and Chevron, U.S.A. and Carla Oil Co. for surrounding parcels.
- Eight Dietz family members filed suits in 2007 alleging improper waste storage, flowlines, equipment causing extensive contamination; requests included injunctive relief and restoration damages.
- Defendants moved for prematurity (notice under Mineral Code Article 136) and improper cumulation (lack of community of interest).
- Trial court delayed ruling on prematurity but granted improper cumulation, requiring amendment to elect/discard actions; later all but Ms. McDonald settled, leaving her as sole plaintiff.
- Trial court dismissed McDonald’s suit without prejudice and denied her motion for new trial; on appeal, prematurity reversal, improper cumulation affirmed, dismissal affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prematurity ruling | McDonald: Article 136 not applicable to restoration claims; claims not premature. | Lessees: prematurity proper due to lack of pre-suit notice. | Prematurity reversed |
| Improper cumulation | McDonald: community of interest exists among claims. | Lessees: no community of interest; improper cumulation proper. | Improper cumulation affirmed; dismissal without prejudice upheld |
| Motion for new trial | McDonald: trial court erred in denying new trial. | Lessees: moot after other issues; no merit to new trial. | Denied as treated on merits; appeal deemed from final judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Marin v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 48 So.3d 234 (La. 2010) (prematurity not required to wait for lease termination for soil/groundwater claims)
- Broussard v. Hilcorp Energy Co., 24 So.3d 813 (La. 2009) (restoration claims not governed by Article 136 and can arise during lease term)
- Corbello v. Iowa Production, 850 So.2d 686 (La. 2003) (duty to repair discussion dicta; later authority limited by Marin)
- Dore Energy Corp. v. Carter-Langham, Inc., 901 So.2d 1238 (La. App. 3 Cir. 2005) (restoration claims deemed premature while operations ongoing (distinguishable))
- Kinder Gas, Inc. v. Reynolds, 84 So.3d 695 (La. App. 3 Cir. 2012) (prematurity considerations in multi-operator contexts)