SUPERVISORY WRIT FROM THE TWENTY-EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COURT PARISH OF LASALLE, NO. 40076 HONORABLE J. CHRISTOPHER
PETERS, DISTRICT JUDGE
Gladstone N. Jones, III Bernard E. Boudreaux, Jr. Kevin E.
Huddell Eberhard D. Garrison H. S. Bartlett, III Emma
Elizabeth Daschbach John T. Arnold Lindsay E. Reeves Jones,
Swanson, Huddell & Garrison, LLC Counsel for
Plaintiff/Relator: Catahoula Lake Investments, LLC
Jennifer Jones Jones Law Firm Counsel for Plaintiff/Relator:
Catahoula Lake Investments, LLC
William Michael Adams Paul M. Adkins Stacey Denise Williams
Brian C. Flanagan Blanchard, Walker, O'Quin Counsel for
Defendant/Respondent: Petro-Hunt, LLC
D. Rhymes April L. Rolen-Ogden Hunter A. Chauvin Liskow &
Lewis Counsel for Defendant/Respondent: XH, LLC
I. Giarrusso, III Liskow & Lewis Counsel for
Defendant/Respondent: XH, LLC
Michael P. Cash Liskow & Lewis Counsel for
Defendant/Respondent: XH, LLC
Matthew Joseph Randazzo, III Christopher B. Bailey Charles W.
Montz, Jr. Jackson D. Logan, III Randazzo, Giglio &
Bailey, LLC Counsel for Defendant/Respondent: Kingfisher
composed of Shannon J. Gremillion, Phyllis M. Keaty, and D.
Kent Savoie, Judges.
PHYLLIS M. KEATY, JUDGE
Catahoula Lake Investments, LLC, seeks supervisory writs from
a judgment which granted, in part, an exception of no right
of action filed by Defendants-Respondents, XH, LLC;
Kingfisher Resources, Inc.; and Petro-Hunt, L.L.C. In Docket
Number 17-651 with this court, Defendants-Relators, XH, LLC;
Kingfisher Resources, Inc.; and Petro-Hunt, L.L.C, seek
supervisory writs from the same judgment which denied, in
part, their exception of no right of action.
AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
filed suit against Defendants claiming that their operations
on Plaintiffs property under mineral leases and a mineral
servitude caused damage to the property. Defendants filed
exceptions of no right of action, asserting that because all
mineral operations had ceased prior to Plaintiffs purchase of
the subject property,  the subsequent purchaser
doctrine prohibited Plaintiff from recovering
against Defendants since Plaintiffs contract purchasing the
property did not expressly pass the seller's personal
rights of action to Plaintiff. The trial court granted the
exception of no right of action in part, stating:
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the
Exceptions of No Right of Action filed by Defendants are
hereby GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN
PART In particular, those exceptions are
GRANTED as to the pre-acquisition damages
claims made against Defendants by the Plaintiff, and those
claims are dismissed. Defendants' exceptions are
DENIED as to plaintiffs post-purchase claims
for regulatory mediation pursuant to Louisiana Revised
Statute[s] 30:29 (Act 312).
we would deny Plaintiffs writ application as the judgment at
issue dismisses portions of Plaintiffs claims and, therefore,
falls under La. Code Civ.P. art. 1915(B). As such, Plaintiff
could obtain review of the judgment by having the trial court
designate the partial judgment as final and immediately
appealable. However, in this instance, Defendant has filed a
writ application seeking the granting of the remainder of
their exception of no right of action. Plaintiffs opposition
to Defendants' writ application is based on the same
arguments made in support of Plaintiffs writ application.
Thus, in ruling on Defendant's properly-filed writ
application, we will necessarily need to address whether
Plaintiffs arguments are meritorious. Therefore, judicial
efficiency mediates toward considering the merits of both
writ applications at this time.
"The function of the exception of no right of action is
to determine whether the plaintiff belongs to the class of
persons to whom the law grants the cause of action asserted
in the suit." Hood v. Cotter, 2008-0215, p. 17
(La. 12/2/08), 5 So.3d 819, 829. An appellate court reviewing
a lower court's ruling on an exception of no right of
action should focus on whether the particular plaintiff has a
right to bring the suit and is a member of the class of
persons that has a legal interest in the subject matter of
the litigation, assuming the petition states a valid cause of
action for some person.
The determination whether a plaintiff has a right to bring an
action raises a question of law. A question of law ...