Louisiana Court of Appeal Rejects Plaintiff's Attempt to Join Claims of Contamination of Separate Parcels with Different Lessees in a Single Action

by King & Spalding
Contact

The Third Circuit Court of Appeal in Louisiana issued an opinion on December 11, 2013, that may have a profound impact on litigation related to contamination from historic oil and gas exploration and production operations in the State. In Dietz v. Superior Oil Company, No. 13-657, slip op. (La. App. 3 Cir. Dec. 11, 2013), the court affirmed the dismissal of a landowner's claims of "oil and gas contamination from numerous operators under multiple leases on noncontiguous pieces of property" id. at 9, concluding that the claims were improperly cumulated due to a lack of community of interest between the joined mineral lessees. This holding not only implicates how claims for oil and gas-related contamination will be litigated, but also where those claims may be litigated.

In Dietz, the family-member plaintiffs owned two non-contiguous pieces of property in Acadaia Parish, Louisiana. One piece was subject to a mineral lease that had been granted to several oil and gas companies over the years, including ExxonMobil, Superior Oil, Mobil Exploration and Production North America, Inc., and Big Energy, L.L.C. The other property had a separate mineral lease chain that included Chevron U.S.A. Inc. and Carla Oil Co. The plaintiffs filed a single suit in 2007 against the mineral lessees under the two leases, asserting that the lessees had engaged in conduct that resulted in extensive contamination to the properties. Ultimately, the trial court dismissed the plaintiffs' claims, holding that the claims were premature because the plaintiffs had not given pre-suit notice of their property contamination claims and that there was no community of interest among the cumulated actions as required under Article 463 of the Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure.

The Third Circuit Court of Appeal's holdings on prematurity and improper cumulation should be of interest for all oil and gas lessees in Louisiana, past and present. The court gave little attention to the trial court's basis for granting the defendants' exception of prematurity: a reliance on an inapplicable Mineral Code provision to require pre-suit notice when no notice was necessary. The significance of the court of appeal's holding on the prematurity issues lies in the more than three pages worth of dicta in which the court considered whether a suit for restoration of contaminated property can be brought during the term of the lease. Relying on Marin v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 48 So. 3d 234 (La. 2010), a case whose interpretation continues to be the subject of much debate among Louisiana litigants, the court stated that "the Louisiana Supreme Court has, in [its] view, definitively decided this issue." Dietz, slip op., at 5. The court of appeal's deference to the Marin ruling is not at all surprising. Should Dietz find its way to the Louisiana Supreme Court, however, there can be little doubt that this statement by the court of appeals will be put to the test.

The more significant pronouncement from the court of appeals in Dietz arises out of the trial court's grant of the defendants' exception of improper cumulation. Article 463 of the Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure provides that two or more parties may be joined in the same suit as plaintiffs or defendants if, among other things, "[t]here is a community of interest between the parties joined." According to Louisiana precedent, "community of interest is present between different actions or parties, where enough factual overlap is present between the cases to make it commonsensical to litigate them together." Albarado v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 787 So. 2d 431, 438 (La. App. 4 Cir.), rev'd on other grounds, 796 So. 2d 666 (La. 2001). The court of appeal rejected the plaintiffs' argument that community of interest existed because "the defendants all engaged in similar negligent conduct." Dietz, slip op., at 9. Rather, the court focused on "the extensive time period of operations, the different lease obligations, and the specific facts that would need to be proven to show liability for each operator" to support its conclusion that there was not sufficient factual overlap between the challenged actions of the defendants to make it "commonsensical to litigate them together." Id.

The potential ramifications of the court's ruling are what make this case significant to the oil and gas industry. Obviously, plaintiffs lawyers would prefer to gather up as much land as possible in a single action for restoration damages; the potential recovery is likely to be greater and it is more convenient and cost-efficient to litigate a single case rather than numerous individual actions each with its own set of facts to discover and present. An outcome that requires plaintiffs lawyers to litigate separate actions against individual defendants based on specific conduct during specific time periods allegedly causing specific damage is, by itself, a significant victory for the oil and gas industry.

But, in Louisiana, where defendants generally view federal court as a much-favored venue over state court, the Dietz ruling may have a profound effect on the matter of jurisdiction. The Dietz ruling, in the proper situation, counters a plaintiff's attempt to defeat federal diversity jurisdiction by cumulating claims to ensure inclusion of a non-diverse defendant. The court of appeal's recognition that claims involving oil and gas contamination require fact-specific inquiries of the leases and the lessees' particular conduct means that a plaintiff cannot escape federal subject matter jurisdiction by combining a claim against a diverse defendant under one lease with an action against a non-diverse defendant under a separate lease. At the very least, the Dietz ruling will require plaintiffs lawyers to be more creative in how they attempt to craft a lawsuit.

An en banc review is likely, as one judge dissented from the court's ruling on improper cumulation, contending that where, as in Dietz, only two tracts of land were involved, the tracts were close to one another, and the plaintiffs claimed that the same groundwater plumes affected both tracts, there was a sufficient community of interest to satisfy the requirements of Article 463. The dissent's view, relying on the specifics of the case before it, would do little to guide future litigants, as it does not endeavor to identify a standard for determining at which point a community of interest ceases to exist.

Ultimately, the issue appears ripe for consideration by the Louisiana Supreme Court. Given the amount of historic and on-going oil and gas exploration and production operations throughout the State, much hinges on how Article 463 is to be applied. A decision upholding the Dietz dismissal on improper cumulation grounds could provide the oil and gas industry with a much-needed advantage with respect to how and where contamination-related claims are to be litigated.

 Jonathan L. Marsh
 Houston
 +1 713 276 7362
 jlmarsh@kslaw.com

 View Profile »

 

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© King & Spalding | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

King & Spalding
Contact
more
less

King & Spalding on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):
hide

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.

Security

JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.
Feedback? Tell us what you think of the new jdsupra.com!