State of Louisiana VS Valero Energy Corporation, Valero Retail Holding, Inc., Valero Marketing and Supply Company, for itself and as successor in interest of Shamrock Oil and Gas Corporation, Total Petroleum, Inc., Sigmor Corporation, Diamond Shamrock Corporation, Diamond Sham

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA NO. 2015 CW 0070 VERSUS VALERO ENERGY CORPORATION; VALERO RETAIL HOLDINGS, INC.; VALERO MARKETING AND SUPPLY COMPANY, and as successor in interest for itself to Shamrock Oil and Gas Corporation, Petroleum, Total Inc., Corporation, Sigmor Diamond Shamrock Corporation, Diamond Shamrock Refining and Marketing Company, Diamond Shamrock, Inc., Ultramar Corporation, and Ultramar Diamond Shamrock, Inc.; CST BRANDS, INC., a Delaware Corporation and, until it was spun off effective May 1, 2013, a wholly owned subsidiary of Valero Energy Corporation; CST Metro LLC; Stations, CST Inc.; Company; Shamrock TOC-DS and CST Services, APR 2ยท 0 2015 LLC. In Re: Valero Energy writs, 19th Baton Rouge, BEFORE: Corporation, Judicial No. DENIED. We for Court, supervisory Parish of East 626,895. PETTIGREW, WELCH AND CHUTZ, WRIT applying District deny the JJ. writ, finding no error in the judgment dated December 3, 2014, which denied the declinatory exception of lack of personal jurisdiction filed by the relator. As a result of its merger with Ultramar Diamond Shamrock Corporation, Valero Energy Corporation is subject to personal jurisdiction in predecessor' s subject Mosaic to 10/24/ 08), itself of monies So.3d So.3d the 496. its who a our able to that of the 4/13/ 99), this forum. exercise of traditional Ruckstuhl 526, in v. 731 Owens of forum 881, Id. fair La. in denied, to be Bridges v. App. 1st Cir. order can to the La. avail sue for successor from the forum, alleged liabilities of its Relator play its 2008-2783 ( benefits failed and Fiberglas cert. sufficient corporation state for that state. predecessor, derive Corning 145 L.Ed.2d 407 ( fact denied, jurisdiction would be notions So.2d this successor should also be expected to answer predecessor in writ corporate is the 2008-0113 ( 317, Since of to constitutionally Inc., 305, benefits owed corporation, were due jurisdiction Holdings, 23 1 state contacts personal Global 2/20/ 09), this 528 to demonstrate unreasonable substantial Corp., U.S. in 98-1126 ( 1019, light justice. 120 La. S.Ct. 1999). WRC JTP CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT 2015 cw 0070 PAGE Welch, COURT J., OF APPEAL, FOR THE concurs and would deny the writ. FIRST CIRCUIT COURT 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.