appeal from the Twenty-Third Judicial District Court In and
for the Parish of Assumption State of Louisiana Docket No.
34, 270, Div. A Honorable Jason Verdigets, Judge Presiding.
Leopold Z. Sher James M. Garner Peter L. Hilbert, Jr. Neal J.
Kling Jeffrey D. Kessler Jonathan B. Cerise Martha Y. Curtis
Rebekka C. Veith Kevin M. McGlone David A. Freedman, Robert
Ryland Percy III Travis J. Turner Gonzales, LA Katie D. Bell
Bradley C. Myers Troy J. Carpentier Baton Rouge, LA Dane S.
Ciolino Metairie, LA Counsel for Third -Party
Plaintiff/Appellant Texas Brine Company, LLC
Kuhn, Christoper B. Bailey Matthew J. Randazzo, III Shawn A.
Carter Will Montz Joshua S. Barnhill, Erika L. Bright Jeffrey
L. Millis, Counsel for Third -Party Defendant/Appellee
Browning Oil Company, Inc., Colorado Crude Company, and LORCA
L. Shea Katherine Smith Baker Ashley G. Gable Joshua A.
Chevallier, Jason M. Cerise Chad J. Landry, Margaret G.
Patton, Counsel for Third -Party Defendant/Appellee Reliance
Margaret G. Patton Baton Rouge, LA Charles E. Tabor Reid A.
Jones Frank H. Spruiell, Jr. Reid A. Jones Seth M. Moyers,
Counsel for Third -Party Defendant/Appellee Sol Kirschner.
BEFORE: GUIDRY, WELCH, AND THERIOT, JJ.
plaintiff, Texas Brine Company, LLC (Texas Brine), appeals a
judgment granting the peremptory exceptions ofres
judicata and collateral estoppel filed by third-party
defendants. For the following reasons, we affirm.
AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
underlying history of this case is familiar to this court as
it has previously been before us on numerous occasions. In
May of 2013, twenty plaintiffs, as owners of land in
Assumption Parish, filed suit against Texas Brine, among
others, asserting damages and injuries from a sinkhole caused
by salt mining operations. Texas Brine answered the
plaintiffs' petition, generally denying liability. Texas
Brine also filed various incidental demands.
relevant to this case, in 2015, Texas Brine filed amended
incidental demands against multiple parties including the
third-party defendants herein, Reliance Petroleum
Corporation, Browning Oil Company, Inc., LORCA Corporation,
Colorado Crude Company, and Sol Kirschner (collectively,
"the oil and gas parties"). In the first matters to
proceed to trial, the Pipeline cases,  the oil and gas
parties filed motions for partial summary judgment and
involuntary dismissal as to all of Texas Brine's claims
against them. These motions were granted by the trial court,
in favor of the oil and gas parties, with several rulings
affirmed by this court on appeal.
with nearly identical incidental demands filed by Texas Brine
against them in the matter herein, the oil and gas parties
filed peremptory exceptions based on the doctrines of res
judicata and collateral estoppel. The trial court
sustained those peremptory exceptions in a judgment signed on
July 16, 2018. Now, Texas Brine appeals, claiming that the
trial court's res judicata judgment "will
be in error," to the extent that any summary judgment or
involuntary dismissal in a Pipeline case is
overruled or modified on appeal, and that the trial court
erred in prematurely dismissing, with prejudice, Texas
Brine's claims against the oil and gas parties. Texas
Brine also filed a motion to stay the instant
Brine argues that the trial court's res judicata
judgment was in error and that the court prematurely
dismissed, with prejudice, Texas Brine's claims against
the oil and gas parties. We first address Texas Brine's
assertion of error regarding the "premature
dismissal" of its claims. In doing so, we recognize the
general rule, codified in Uniform Rules-Courts of Appeal,
Rule 1-3, which provides: "[t]he Courts of Appeal will
review only issues which were submitted to the trial
court..., unless the interest of justice clearly requires
otherwise." We ...