Texas Gas Exploration Corp. v. Lafourche Realty Co.
79 So. 3d 1054
| La. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Consolidated concursus cases involve Lafourche Realty and Energen over oil royalties and related claims from multiple old leases in Lake Enfermer Field.
- Energen moved for summary judgment on a single issue under La. C.C.P. art. 966(E), arguing Lafourche Realty was precluded from its claims.
- The district court granted the partial summary judgment on November 30, 2010, dismissing Lafourche Realty’s claim under La. R.S. 31:140 but not addressing fraud or prudent-operator claims.
- The judgment did not specify which consolidated cases were affected, and Lafourche Realty sought appeal/certification as final under Article 1915(B).
- The district court issued a per curiam stating the judgment was not final or appealable and refused to certify it as final.
- This Court sua sponte questioned jurisdiction, held the partial summary judgment was not properly designated as final, and dismissed the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction, remanding for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the partial summary judgment was appealable under Article 1915(B) | Lafourche Realty: judgment effectively resolved all issues with Energen. | Energen: judgment was not final and not properly certified under Article 1915(B). | Not appealable; district court properly declined designation as final. |
| Whether the district court’s per curiam ruling precludes appellate review on merits | Lafourche Realty: practical effect resolves disputes; merits should be reviewed. | Energen: per curiam shows no finality; merits should not be reviewed. | Remains non-final; no jurisdiction to review merits. |
| Whether the appeal should be treated as final under Article 1915(A) due to practical resolution of related claims | Lafourche Realty: because related fraud and prudent-operator claims are intertwined, finality should attach. | Energen: remaining claims prevent finality under 1915(A). | Not final under 1915(A); still required 1915(B) designation. |
| Whether the absence of decretal language in the judgment taints finality | Judgment effectively resolves dispute; decretal language unnecessary in practice. | Final judgments require precise decretal language; here it lacks proper finality language. | Judgment defective for lack of proper decretal language; jurisdiction lacking. |
| Whether this Court should convert to supervisory writ review | Immediate relief via supervisory writ appropriate to correct jurisdictional defect. | Conversion would circumvent Article 1915; not appropriate here. | declined; no supervisory writ proceeding. |
Key Cases Cited
- Motorola, Inc. v. Associated Indem. Corp., 867 So.2d 715 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2003) (sua sponte examination of jurisdiction before merits)
- In re Succession of Guilbeau, 51 So.3d 185 (La. App. 3d Cir. 2010) (partial summary judgments require proper finality designation)
- Richardson v. Tessier, 977 So.2d 55 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2007) (jurisdictional rules govern immediate review of partial judgments)
- In re Chemical Release at Bogalusa, 718 So.2d 1015 (La. App. 1st Cir. 1998) (supervisory review limitations and jurisdictional safeguards)
- Van ex rel White v. Davis, 808 So.2d 478 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2001) (limits on mutual consent in finality designation under 1915)
- Shapiro v. L & L Fetter, Inc., 845 So.2d 406 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2003) (consent cannot confer appellate jurisdiction)
- In re Succession of Grimmett, 738 So.2d 27 (La. App. 2d Cir. 1999) (when to apply supervisory writ review of non-final judgments)