Gerald Wayne Mizell and Pamela Mizell Helton v. Bobby Joe Willis and James E. Willis

Nov 15, 2019
2019CA0141
Versions:

Leopold Z. Sher

James M. Garner

Peter L. Hilbert, Jr.

Jeffrey D. Kessler

David A. Freedman

Rebekka C. Veith

New Orleans, LA

Counsel for Third-Party Plaintiff/Appellant, Texas Brine Company, LLC

Robert Ryland Percy, III

Gonzales, LA

Mary S. Johnson

Mandeville, LA

Counsel for Third-Party Defendant/Appellee Lexington Insurance Company (solely in its capacity as an alleged insurer of Adams Resources Exploration Corporation)

Nichole M. Gray

New Orleans, LA

BEFORE: HIGGINBOTHAM, PENZATO, AND LANIER, JJ.

LANIER, J.

Texas Brine Company, LLC (“Texas Brine“), appeals a September 13, 2017 judgment sustaining a declinatory exception raising the objection of lis pendens filed by Lexington Insurance Company (“Lexington“), as an alleged insurer of Adams Resources Exploration Corporation. That judgment dismissed “any and all claims, demands, and/or allegations asserted by [Texas Brine] against [Lexington] in their entirety, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, in favor of the first-filed set of claims and demands,” without declaring which of the multiple sinkhole cases was the first-filed suit.

The factual and procedural history of this litigation is well known to both this court and the parties and will not be reiterated herein. After the instant appeal was lodged, this court dismissed appeals in several other matters pertaining to this litigation, including the appeals in Pontchartrain Natural Gas System, et al v. Texas Brine Company, LLC, 2018-0419 (La. App. 1 Cir. 6/26/19), ___ So.3d ___, 2019 WL 2609034, *2, writ denied, stay denied, 2019-01125 (La. 7/17/19), ___ So.3d ___, 2019 WL 3491637; and Pontchartrain Natural Gas System, et al v. Texas Brine Company, LLC, 2018-0435 (La. App. 1 Cir. 6/26/19), ___ So.3d ___, 2019 WL 2609142, *2, that control the disposition of the instant appeal. For the same reasons as those given in these two prior Pontchartrain cases, this court is unable to determine the exact relief granted or denied by the September 13, 2017 judgment, which renders it indefinite and not a final, appealable judgment. In the absence of a valid final judgment, this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Advanced Leveling & Concrete Solutions v. Lathan Company, Inc., 2017-1250 (La. App. 1 Cir. 12/20/18), 268 So.3d 1044, 1047 (en banc).

Moreover, while we acknowledge that the parties have filed a joint motion to summarily dismiss this appeal as moot, we note that the district court‘s judgment, rendered after the liability trial is currently the subject of multiple appeals that are pending before this court and, thus, has not yet acquired the authority of a thing adjudged. Therefore, we deny the joint motion to dismiss the appeal sub judice as moot. See La. Code Civ. P. arts. 2166 and 2167. See also Pontchartrain Natural Gas System, et al v. Texas Brine Company, LLC, 2018-0360 (La. App. 1 Cir. 7/3/19), ___ So.3d ___, 2019 WL 2865129, *1.

CONCLUSION

We issue this summary opinion in accordance with Uniform Rules--Courts of Appeal, Rule 2-16.2A(1) and (2), dismissing this appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and finding that the disposition is clearly controlled by case law precedent. Further, we deny the parties’ joint motion to dismiss this appeal as moot. Additionally, because we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction, we pretermit ruling on all other pending motions connected to this appeal. We assess all costs of this appeal to Texas Brine Company, LLC.

JOINT MOTION TO DISMISS AS MOOT DENIED; RULINGS ON ALL PENDING MOTIONS PRETERMITTED; APPEAL DISMISSED.