GLOBAL MARKETING SOLUTIONS, L.L.C.
BLUE MILL FARMS, INC., ET AL
Appealed from the 18th Judicial District Court In and for the
Parish of West Baton Rouge State of Louisiana Case No. 35,
373 The Honorable Alvin C. Batiste, Jr., Judge Presiding
Richard J. Ward, Jr. Maringouin, Louisiana Martin K. Maley,
Sr. Baton Rouge, Louisiana Donald T. Carmouche Victor L.
Marcello John H. Carmouche William R. Coenen, III Brian T.
Carmouche Todd J. Wimberley Ross J. Donnes D. Adele Owen
Baton Rouge, Louisiana Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellant Global
Marketing Solutions, L.L.C.
M. Culpepper New Orleans, Louisiana Counsel for
Defendant/Appellee Key Production Company, Inc.
BEFORE: WHIPPLE, GUIDRY, THERIOT, HOLDRIDGE, AND PENZATO, JJ.
Marketing Solutions, L.L.C. appeals the judgment of the
Eighteenth Judicial District Court sustaining the exceptions
of no cause of action filed by Chevron U.S.A. Inc., Exxon
Mobil Corporation, Key Production Company, Inc., and Seal
Energy Company, Inc. For the following reasons, we reverse
the trial court's judgment and remand for further
AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
of cash sale recorded in the conveyance records of the Parish
of West Baton Rouge on September 12, 2005, Global Marketing
Solutions, L.L.C. ("Global") purchased 144 acres of
land located in the Bayou Choctaw Oil and Gas Field from
Water Oak Plantation, L.L.C. Global alleges that after
purchasing the land, it discovered that the land was
contaminated by various forms of toxic waste that had seeped
through the soil from drilling operations that had been
conducted since 1937 to the present time.
time did Global possess mineral rights to the land. The
mineral rights had been severed years prior by various
mineral leases beginning in the 1930s. Through investigation
and discovery, Global learned that the defendants were
mineral lessees at various points in the land's history
and had conducted drilling operations.
March 14, 2006, Global filed suit against several defendants,
including Chevron U.S.A., Inc. ("Chevron"), Exxon
Mobil Corporation ("Exxon"), Key Production
Company, Inc. ("Key"), and Seal Energy Company
("Seal"), asserting contract and tort claims.
According to Global, the various defendants were responsible
for the contamination of the property at issue. The trial
court ultimately dismissed the claims against the defendants
pursuant to the Supreme Court of Louisiana's holding in
Eagle Pipe and Supply, Inc. v. Amerada Hess
Corporation, 2010-2267 (La. 10/25/11); 79 So.3d
On September 19, 2014, this court affirmed the dismissal. See
Global Marketing Solutions, LLC v. Blue Mill Farms,
Inc., 2013-2132 (La.App. 1 Cir. 9/9/14); 153 So.3d 1209,
writ denied, 2014-2572 (La.App. 1 Cir. 4/23/15); 173
November 16, 2015, Global filed a fifth supplemental and
amending petition seeking damages from Chevron, Exxon, Key,
Seal, and other defendants. In the fifth supplemental and
amending petition, Global sought a mandatory and prohibitive
injunction ordering the various defendants in the
supplemental petition to remediate the contamination on
Global's property caused by oil and gas exploration and
production activities to a level that complies with
applicable regulations and orders, including Statewide Order
29-B, and restraining defendants in the supplemental petition
from further violating, or threatening to violate, applicable
regulations and orders, including Statewide Order 29-B.
fifth supplemental and amending petition referenced two
letters sent by Global to the Commissioner of Conservation
("the Commissioner"). The first letter, dated
September 23, 2015, informed the Commissioner that Global
owns contaminated property and deemed the letter to be formal
notice of regulatory violations under La. R.S. 30:14. This
letter also stated that if the Commissioner did not take
action within ten days, Global would sue the responsible
parties for injunctive and other appropriate relief. On
October 14, 2015, Global sent a second letter to the
Commissioner, which referred to the September 23, 2015 letter
and reiterated Global's request that the Commissioner
file suit under La. R.S. 30:14 or that Global would do so
under La. R.S. 30:16.
November 6, 2015, the Commissioner sent a compliance order to
Chevron seeking a work plan for assessing soil and
groundwater conditions at the site at issue. The compliance
order noted that there are constituents of concern present in
the soil and/or groundwater of the property in question which
indicates potential impact from historical oil and gas
exploration and production activities in excess of regulatory
allowances. As a result, the Commissioner ordered Chevron to
submit a plan for assessing soil and groundwater conditions
at the subject site by January 6, 2016. Chevron and Exxon
allege that Chevron timely responded to that order by
submitting a work plan, and that the Office of Conservation
approved that work plan. However, in its fifth supplemental
and amending petition (filed November 16, 2015), Global
claimed that the Commissioner had failed to act on those
letters, thus giving Global the right to seek relief set
forth in La. R.S. 30:14 and30:16.
March 2016 and April 2016, Key, Exxon, Chevron, and Seal
filed various exceptions of prescription and res judicata
seeking to have Global's claims against them dismissed.
On June 1, 2016, the trial court denied their exceptions, but
dismissed several other defendants on exceptions of no cause
of action. In May 2017, Chevron, Exxon, Key, and Seal filed
multiple declinatory and peremptory exceptions, including an
exception of no cause of action. In their exceptions of no
cause of action, the defendants alleged that Global had no
cause of action under La. R.S. 30:16 to prevent wholly past
trial court heard arguments on the May 2017 exceptions on
July 26, 2017. On July 31, 2017, the trial court rendered a
final partial judgment which granted the exceptions of no
cause of action filed by Chevron, Exxon, Key, and Seal. The
judgment also declared that the other pending exceptions
filed by Chevron, Exxon, Key, and Seal were moot.
Additionally, the judgment was designated as a final judgment
as to Chevron, Exxon, Key, and Seal pursuant to La. Code Civ.
P. arts. 1911 and 1915(A)(1). Global subsequently moved for a
new trial, which was denied. Global now appeals the July 31,
2017 judgment and the judgment denying Global's motion
for new trial.