Florida Gas Transmission Company, LLC VS Texas Brine Company, LLC
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT NO. 2018 CA 0068 FLORIDA GAS TRANSMISSION COMPANY, LLC VERSUS TEXAS BRINE COMPANY, LLC, ET AL. Judgment Rendered: rJUL 1 1 2019 On Appeal from The 23rd Judicial District Court, Parish of Assumption, State of Louisiana Trial Court No. 34, 316 The Honorable Thomas J. Kliebert Jr., Judge Presiding Martin A. Stern Attorneys for Appellant/Third-Party Leigh Ann Schell Defendant, Raymond P. Ward Occidental Chemical Corporation Sara Valentine New Orleans, Louisiana Brad D. Brian (Pro Hac Vice) Bethany W. Kristovich (Pro Hae Vice) Los Angeles, California Frank L. Maraist Baton Rouge, Louisiana Leopold Z. Sher Attorneys for Defendant/ Appellee, James M. Garner Texas Brine Company, LLC Peter L. Hilbert Jr. Jeffrey D. Kessler New Orleans, Louisiana Theodore L. Jones Baton Rouge, Louisiana Robert Ryland Percy III Gonzales, Louisiana Eric J. Mayer Houston, Texas Travis J. Turner Gonzales, Louisiana BEFORE: McDONALD, CRAIN, AND THERIOT, JJ. W CRAIN, J. Occidental Chemical Corporation appeals a judgment granting injunctive relief to Texas Brine Company, LLC. We reverse the judgment and remand. The facts and procedural history relevant to this appeal are set forth in Florida Gas Transmission Company, LLC v. Texas Brine Company, LLC, 18- 0075 La. App. 1 Cir. 7/ 1/ 19), So. 3d (" Florida Gas 0075"), where this court found the trial court erred in rendering summary judgments declaring a salt lease terminated by confusion ( salt lease summary judgments). The Florida Gas 0075 holding was based on a finding the parties contractually agreed an arbitration panel, not the court, must decide the arbitrability of their claims. 0075, Florida Gas So. 3d at This appeal relates to a judgment signed August 23, 2017, granting Texas Brine' s motion and awarding injunctive relief in connection with the salt lease summary judgments. panel " In relevant part, the judgment ( 1) shall adhere to the Court' s ruling ... ordered the arbitration finding that the Salt Lease terminated by confusion," ( 2) preliminarily enjoined Occidental " from taking further action to confirm the arbitration panel' s final interim award ... was not terminated by confusion," and ( 3) finding ... the Salt Lease enjoined the arbitration panel " from issuing any merits decision until at least 30 days after the submission" of the Phase 1 stage of certain suits, including the present litigation, filed on behalf of several pipeline companies.' Occidental appeals. For the reasons given in Florida Gas 0075, the trial court erred in issuing injunctive relief ordering the arbitration panel to abide by its confusion ruling, preventing the arbitration panel from exercising its authority to determine the arbitrability of the confusion claim, and preventing Occidental from pursuing The other suits were filed by Pontchartrain Natural Gas System, K/D/ S Promix, L.L.C. and Acadian Gas Pipeline, bearing trial court number 34,265; and Crosstex Energy Services, LP and several entities related thereto, bearing trial court number 34, 202. 3 confirmation of a panel award in accordance with the Federal Arbitration Act. See 9 U.S. C. A. § 9. The August 23, 2017 judgment is reversed, and this matter is remanded for further proceedings. This memorandum opinion is issued in accordance with Uniform Rules— Courts of Appeal, Rule 2- 16. 1B. All costs of this appeal are assessed to Texas Brine Company, LLC. JUDGMENT REVERSED; CASE REMANDED.2 2 All pending motions are denied. We also find no merit in Texas Brine' s Exception of Res Judicata, wherein it contends the supreme court' s order in Crosstex Energy Services, LP v. Texas Brine Company, LLC, 18- 1128 ( La. 10/ 29/ 18), 255 So. 3d 587 ( per curiam) is res judicata as to the arbitrability of the salt lease confusion claim. The supreme court' s three -sentence order does not address the subject arbitration clause or the arbitrability of the confusion claim. The Exception of Res Judicata is denied. 11
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.
