Justia Louisiana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider whether the doctrine of "contra non valentem" applied to suspend a ten year liberative prescriptive period applicable to an action by a mineral interest owner against the operator of a unit well who failed to pay the owner share of the proceeds for mineral production. Plaintiff James Wells filed suit after being contacted by a landman concerning leasing of his mineral interest in lands inherited from his parents. In the 1950s, Plaintiff's parents sold the land but reserved the mineral interests. Plaintiff's mother executed a mineral lease which was released a few years later because the well drilled resulted in a dry hole. However, the landowners executed their own mineral lease, which achieved production in 1965, and continued producing until 2007. Plaintiff filed suit against Defendants Donald Zadeck and Zadeck Energy Group and several other companies who were allegedly conducting oil and gas exploration and production activities from his unleased unitized acreage without tendering to him (or his parents) their rightful share of proceeds from the production. In response, Zadeck filed a Peremptory Exception of Prescription, urging that Plaintiff's claim to recover payments was a quasi contract that prescribed ten years from Zadeck's successor's cessation of involvement with the "dry hole." Plaintiff argued that the doctrine of "contra non valentem" applied to suspend the running of prescription since he had no knowledge of the existence of the mineral interests or production until December 2008. Plaintiff contended that his ignorance was not attributable to any fault of his own, and he clearly exercised due diligence in discovering the relevant facts once he learned from the landman that he owned the mineral interests. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded the doctrine of contra non valentem applied to suspend the running of prescription because the mineral interest owners did not know nor reasonably should they have known of the mineral production until December 2008. View "Wells v. Zadeck Energy Group" on Justia Law

The issue before the Supreme Court was whether scheduling a discovery conference pursuant to Rule 10.1 of the Rules for Louisiana District Courts constitutes a "step" in the prosecution or defense of an action sufficient to prevent abandonment of the action under La. Code Civ. Proc. art. 561. After Plaintiff Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development (DOTD) failed to timely respond to discovery requests, Defendant Oilfield Heavy Haulers, L.L.C. (OHH) sent a letter to DOTD requesting a Rule 10.1 discovery conference. Subsequently, DOTD served its discovery responses on OHH, but neglected to serve the other defendants. No formal action occurred in the case until April 22, 2010, when the District Court granted defendants’ ex parte motion for an order of dismissal on the basis of abandonment. The Court of Appeal affirmed, finding DOTD's discovery responses and OHH's letter did not constitute "steps" in the prosecution or defense of the action. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to address the correctness vel non of the appellate court's decision. The Court found that scheduling a Rule 10.1 conference constitutes a "step" in the prosecution or defense of an action sufficient to interrupt abandonment. Therefore, the Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeal and remand to the District Court for further proceedings. View "Louisiana Dept. of Transport. & Dev. v. Oilfield Heavy Haulers, LLC" on Justia Law

In September 2007, Petitioner Mitchell Glasgow was severely burned from a fire at an oil well at which he worked. At the time, Therral Story Well Service (TSWS) directly employed Mr. Glasgow. The mineral owners contracted with another company, PAR Minerals, Inc., to produce oil and gas. In turn, PAR Minerals contracted with TSWS to drill a well. The well penetrated into formations that were pressurized with hydrocarbons. Mr. Glasgow was circulating water trough the well while waiting for heavier drilling mud to be pumped into the well to control the pressure. A TSWS employee told Mr. Glasgow to stand away from the well because the pressure was dangerous, but a PAR Minerals "on-site supervisor" ordered Mr. Glasgow to get on his station at the pump, and jump away only if gas escaped from the well. Gas escaped, ignited, and severely burned Mr. Glasgow. Mr. Glasgow filed suit against PAR Minerals and its insurer. PAR Minerals would receive service of process one year later. PAR Minerals moved for summary judgment, arguing that it was Mr. Glasgow's "statutory employer" and therefore immune to lawsuits like his. The district court granted PAR Minerals' motion, holding that because of the year delay in getting PAR Minerals notice of the lawsuit, Mr. Glasgow's suit was prescribed and untimely. A split appellate court affirmed the district court's dismissal, and Mr. Glasgow appealed. After a thorough review of the record, the Supreme Court found that the lower courts erred in dismissing Mr. Glasgow's claims as prescribed. The Court reversed the lower courts' holdings and remanded the case for further proceedings.