LOUISIANA ENERGY GATEWAY LLC v. ETC TEXAS PIPELINE LTD GULF RUN TRANSMISSION LLC AND ET GATHERING PROCESSING LLC (2025)

This appeal concerns the trial court's issuance of a permanent injunction in favor of the plaintiff, Louisiana Energy Gateway LLC (“LEG”), preventing the defendants—Gulf Run Transmission LLC, ETC Texas Pipeline LTD, and ET Gathering & Processing LLC (collectively “ETP”)¹ —from interfering with LEG's construction, operation, and maintenance of a pipeline that will cross under ETP's existing pipelines in Vernon Parish. This appeal also concerns the trial court's denial of a permanent injunction requested by ETP.

SUMMARY OF FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

LEG intends to build a natural gas gathering system in Louisiana to move natural gas from the Haynesville Shale to South Louisiana. This includes a pipeline comprised of three segments of varying diameter, covering approximately 170 miles, and crossing more than 300 pipelines and utility lines.

As it relates to this case, LEG intends to construct a 42-inch diameter section of pipeline across Vernon Parish. This will result in LEG crossing underneath twelve different gas pipelines owned or operated by ETP in that parish. To this end, LEG obtained pipeline servitude rights from various landowners, including Martin Timberlands LLC (“Martin”) and FS Louisiana II LLC (“FS”). ETP had preexisting servitude agreements with those same landowners.

Nonetheless, in May 2023, LEG notified ETP about the twelve proposed crossings in Vernon Parish. That same day, ETP was given various documents related to the LEG system, including the crossing plans for the ETP pipelines. Two weeks later, LEG sent ETP additional information related to the proposed crossings, including the servitude agreements that LEG had already negotiated. A few weeks after that, ETP advised LEG that it objected to all proposed crossings.

Then, in November 2023, LEG filed suit against ETP. The suit, among other things, sought a permanent injunction to prohibit ETP from interfering with LEG's construction, operation, and maintenance of its pipeline crossings in Vernon Parish. In response, ETP sought its own permanent injunction against LEG. ETP also sought a declaratory judgment.

The trial of these matters was held in June 2024. At the close of evidence, the trial court took the case under advisement. Seven weeks later, the trial court issued written reasons for judgment. Then, on August 8, 2024, the trial court signed a final Judgment. In essence, the Judgment granted LEG's request for permanent injunction, denied ETP's request for permanent injunction, and denied ETP's request for declaratory judgment.

In response, ETP moved for a new trial. That motion was denied by the trial court. ETP then appealed.

On appeal, ETP asserts ten assignments of error:

1. The Judge committed legal error in his interpretation of the FS Servitude in failing to rule, as a matter of law, that LEG cannot construct a pipeline crossing at the FS Servitude without ETP's consent and agreement.

2. The Judge committed legal error in his interpretation of the Martin Servitude in failing to rule, as a matter of law, that LEG cannot construct a pipeline crossing at the Martin Servitude without ETP's consent and agreement.

3. The Judge committed legal error in denying ETP's request for an injunction finding that the construction, installation, operation, and maintenance of LEG's pipeline at Crossing 42-19, Crossing 42-20, and Crossing 42-24 will not unreasonably nor unduly interfere with or prevent the use of ETP's servitude, including as to previously undisclosed and poorly evaluated new construction methods.

4. The Judge committed legal error when he issued his Ruling, which violates the Louisiana Constitution and sanctions an unconstitutional taking.

5. The Judge erred in finding, based on limited evidence by LEG, that LEG would construct, install, operate, and maintain the pipeline in a safe manner in accordance with industry standards and in accordance with state law and federal law.

6. The Judge committed legal error in failing to admit and consider the ETP LONOs [or letters of no opposition] as to nine of the Vernon Crossings.

7. The Judge committed legal error in Ruling that the nine Vernon Crossings not contested by ETP had prescribed.

8. The Judge committed legal error in not admitting Mark Schroeder's testimony.

9. The Judge committed legal error by improperly applying the Louisiana Civil Code articles applicable to legal servitudes to ETP's Servitudes.

10. The Judge erred in failing to grant ETP's request for permanent injunction and declaratory relief.

LAW AND ANALYSIS

ETP's First and Second Assignments of Error

The first and second assignments of error concern three contested crossings of ETP pipelines: crossing numbers 42-19, 42-20, and 42-24. Resolution of these assignments depends on the trial court's interpretation of two servitude agreements. Because the interpretation of a contract is an issue of law, we review these assignments de novo. Van Mol v. Beasley, 15-869 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2/3/16), 184 So.3d 280.

Here, ETP frames the issues for review this way:

1. Whether the FS Servitude requires, by its terms and Louisiana law, that LEG obtain ETP's consent before constructing pipeline crossings at locations where the LEG servitude and the FS Servitude are co-extensive? (Assignment of Error No. 1.)

2. Whether the Martin Servitude requires, by its terms and Louisiana law, that LEG obtain ETP's consent before constructing pipeline crossings at locations where the LEG servitude and the Martin Servitude are co-extensive? (Assignment of Error No. 2.)

The FS Servitude refers to the pipeline servitude agreement between FS and ETP-affiliate Gulf Run. And the Martin Servitude refers to the pipeline servitude agreement between Martin and Gulf Run. The FS Servitude and Martin Servitude are collectively referred to as the “ETP Servitudes.” As noted, the ETP Servitudes predate LEG's servitude agreements with FS and Martin.

In relevant part, the FS Servitude grants ETP the following rights:

[A] permanent servitude of use Fifty (50) feet in width and THIRTY SEVEN THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED SEVENTY SEVEN and 80/100 (37,177.80) linear feet, more or less, for the purposes of constructing, maintaining, inspecting, operating, patrolling, repairing, renewing, and removing, in whole or in part, one (1) pipeline consisting of one line of pipe, no larger than forty-two (42) inches in diameter for the transportation of natural gas and associated liquids[.]

The FS Servitude further states:

4. Nothing herein shall be construed as a conveyance of any part of the ownership of the Servitude Property or the mineral rights underlying the Servitude Property․

․

6. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein, this servitude is granted solely and exclusively to [ETP], for its own use for a single pipeline or for internal use by [ETP] for transmission of electricity․

․

․ [I]n no event shall [ETP], its successors or assigns be permitted to maintain more than one (1) pipeline on this servitude․

․

13. [ETP's] limited servitude is subject to [FS's] Reserved Rights which shall include ․ [FS's] right to grant other servitudes under, over and across the Servitude Property ․

[ETP] shall bury the pipeline at a sufficient depth, not less than forty-eight (48”) inches ․

․

․ Such uses and Reserved Rights, however, are not to interfere unreasonably with or prevent the use of the servitude by [ETP] for the purpose for which same is granted.

Similarly, the Martin Servitude grants ETP a right of way “for the installation of an oil and gas pipeline subject to the conditions and provisions of the Agreement[.]” The Martin Servitude (emphasis added) further states:

[ETP] shall have the right to open, clear, construct, lay, operate and maintain, patrol, inspect, alter, repair, replace, and remove pipelines up to Forty-Two inches (42’) in nominal diameter and with a maximum operating pressure of 1440 psig for transportation of oil, gas, or products of oil or gas; and to construct meter houses and other appurtenances, including cathodic protection facilities within the Right of Way.

․

․ Pipeline segments installed are to be buried at a minimum of four (4) feet below the lowest condition of the ground ․

․ [Martin] may grant its rights to others, provided those uses and grants shall be of a safe nature, and shall not unreasonably interfere with [ETP's] enjoyment of the Right of Way and other grants, privileges, or licenses conveyed herein.

․

․ [ETP] by acceptance of this Agreement, acknowledges that the terms and measurements herein granted are adequate and suitable for its needs for one pipeline․

․ [ETP] shall never expand or increase the Right of Way without having first secured a grant for additional area through appropriate written document from [Martin].

․

․ It is expressly understood and agreed that this Agreement does not constitute a conveyance of any part of the lands nor of the minerals therein or thereunder, but grants only the easement described.

At the outset, the servitude granted to ETP under the FS Servitude and Martin Servitude is a personal servitude right of use, not a predial servitude. E.g., Enable Midstream Partners, LP v. Louisiana Energy Gateway LLC, 55,916, p. 16 (La.App. 2 Cir. 10/2/24), 400 So.3d 1142, 1151, writ denied, 24-1523 (La. 2/25/25), 401 So.3d 662 (“[T]he pipeline servitude is not a predial servitude because it does not involve two estates; rather, it is a right of use granted to the pipeline company.”).

Under Louisiana law, “ownership” is defined as “the right that confers on a person direct, immediate, and exclusive authority over a thing. The owner of a thing may use, enjoy, and dispose of it within the limits and under the conditions established by law.” La.Civ.Code art. 477.

By comparison, “[t]he personal servitude of right of use confers in favor of a person a specified use of an estate less than full enjoyment.” La.Civ.Code art. 639. It also includes those rights “contemplated or necessary to enjoyment at the time of its creation as well as rights that may later become necessary, provided that a greater burden is not imposed on the property unless otherwise stipulated in the title.” La.Civ.Code art. 642. Importantly, “[a] right of use is regulated by application of the rules governing usufruct and predial servitudes to the extent that their application is compatible with the rules governing a right of use servitude.” La.Civ.Code art. 645.

Here, the relevant predial-servitude rules begin with La.Civ.Code arts. 646: “A predial servitude is a charge on a servient estate for the benefit of a dominant estate.” In this sense—as this rule is applied to the pipeline right of use servitudes—the FS and Martin tracts of land are the servient estates, and the corresponding ETP Servitudes and LEG servitudes are the dominant estates.

Next, La.Civ.Code art. 720 states: “The owner of the servient estate may establish thereon additional servitudes, provided they do not affect adversely the rights of the owner of the dominant estate.” This article directly addresses FS and Martin's right to grant multiple servitudes.

Finally, La.Civ.Code art. 730 provides: “Doubt as to the existence, extent, or manner of exercise of a predial servitude shall be resolved in favor of the servient estate.” The revision comments to Article 730 further provide:

It is a cardinal rule of interpretation that, in case of doubt, instruments purporting to establish predial servitudes are always interpreted in favor of the owner of the property to be affected. The rule incorporates into Louisiana law the civilian principle that any doubt as to the free use of immovable property must be resolved in favorem libertatis.

La.Civ.Code art. 730 cmt. (b). On the other hand, “[w]hen the words of a contract are clear and explicit and lead to no absurd consequences, no further interpretation may be made in search of the parties’ intent.” La.Civ.Code art. 2046.

In our case, ETP's argument as to interpretation runs this way: the ETP Servitudes “express a clear and unambiguous intent to give ETP control over the development on servitude properties. While the servitudes contain language reserving rights to the grantor, those rights do not include the right to allow another pipeline to cross the ETP Servitudes.” We disagree. For all intents and purposes, the same argument has been made and rejected in five recent cases involving ETP affiliates.

The first case is ETC Tiger Pipeline, LLC v. DT Midstream, Inc., 55,534 (La.App. 2 Cir. 4/10/24), 384 So.3d 458, writ denied, 24-763 (La. 10/8/24), 394 So.3d 271. In that case, the pipeline servitude gave ETP-affiliate ETC Tiger the “exclusive” right to construct, operate, and maintain one pipeline within the width described, but the depth of the pipeline was not mentioned. Based on this, ETC Tiger argued that it had an exclusive servitude and could therefore prevent DT Midstream's construction of a crossing pipeline.

The second circuit disagreed, explaining that “[o]ur Civil Code anticipates multiple servitudes burdening a servient estate and states that servitudes should be interpreted in favor of the servient estate[.]” Id. at 467. Thus, ETC Tiger had no right to prohibit a crossing beneath its existing pipeline even though the subject servitude agreement provided ETC Tiger with an exclusive pipeline servitude. The appellate court reasoned that ETC Tiger's “exclusive” rights did not extend to unlimited depths because “[a]ny uncertainty as to the depth of the pipeline was made certain at the time the pipeline was completed.” Id. at 468.

Likewise, in Enable Midstream, 400 So.3d 1142, the second circuit held that ETP-affiliate Enable had no right to bar LEG's crossing, notwithstanding Enable's exclusive servitude rights. There, the appellate court explained:

[W]hether Enable has the right to block the crossing pipeline is dependent upon the Enable Ricks Servitude agreement and what was granted to Enable. The Enable Ricks Servitude uses the word “exclusive” once, and it is not defined in the agreement. In keeping with this Court's jurisprudence, we do not find that the one-time use of the word “exclusive” means that Enable's servitude includes all depths and can subjectively block the crossing of another pipeline.

The Enable Ricks Servitude is for one pipeline within the 50-foot servitude, buried at a depth of three to four feet, depending upon the surface use․ Unlike the ETC v. DT Midstream case, this agreement states a depth for the pipeline. Therefore, we will not stretch the onetime-use of the word “exclusive” to convey an intent of exclusive rights to all depths when the pipeline must be buried at a specific depth.

Id. at 1152.

Then, in ETC Tiger Pipeline, LLC v. Louisiana Energy Gateway LLC, 55,913 (La.App. 2 Cir. 10/2/24), 400 So.3d 1123, writ denied, 24-1350 (La. 1/14/25), 398 So.3d 1168 (“ETC Tiger I”), ETC Tiger was granted an exclusive pipeline servitude to construct, maintain, and operate one pipeline at an unspecified depth. But again, “ ‘exclusive’ pipeline servitudes do not extend to the center of the earth without express language stating as such. This means servitude holders, such as LEG, may cross beneath an existing ‘exclusive’ servitude without violating the real rights of the original servitude holder.” Id. at 1128.

Next, in ETC Tiger Pipeline, LLC v. Louisiana Energy Gateway, LLC, 56,073, p. 4 (La.App. 2 Cir. 2/26/25), 408 So.3d. 341, 344 (“ETC Tiger II”), the second circuit found “no reason to deviate from our earlier holding” that ETC Tiger had no legal basis to refuse LEG's crossing. Like before, ETC Tiger possessed an exclusive pipeline servitude. But unlike before, the servitude agreement gave ETC Tiger the right to construct multiple pipelines in addition to the one already constructed and in operation.

Finally, in Louisiana Energy Gateway, LLC v. Trunkline Gas Co., LLC, 24-544 (La.App. 3 Cir. 4/2/25), 411 So.3d 825, ETP-affiliate Trunkline Gas argued that its consent was required before LEG could construct crossing pipelines. In rejecting this argument, a different panel of this court explained:

In the present case, nothing in the ․ [servitude agreements] stated that consent from the existing pipeline servitude grantees was required before the landowner could grant additional pipeline servitudes. There is also nothing in the servitude agreements that prevent the crossing by other pipelines. Furthermore, the word “exclusive” is not used in any of the present servitude agreements.

Id. at 833.

Here—in line with DT Midstream, Enable Midstream, ETC Tiger I, ETC Tiger II, and Trunkline Gas—nothing in the ETP Servitudes requires consent from ETP before the landowners (FS and Martin) can grant additional pipeline servitudes, and nothing in the ETP Servitudes prevents future crossings absent ETP's consent. And like the cited cases, the ETP Servitudes expressly reserve to the landowners the right to grant additional pipeline servitudes.

To sum up, LEG did not need ETP's consent to construct a pipeline crossing at the FS Servitude. Nor did LEG need ETP's consent to construct a pipeline crossing at the Martin Servitude. The trial court correctly interpreted these servitude agreements. ETP's first and second assignments of error are without merit.

ETP's Third and Fifth Assignments of Error

ETP asserts in its third assignment that the trial court “committed legal error in denying ETP's request for an injunction finding that the construction, installation, operation, and maintenance of LEG's pipeline at Crossing 42-19, Crossing 42-20, and Crossing 42-24 will not unreasonably nor unduly interfere with or prevent the use of ETP's servitude[.]”

Similarly, ETP asserts in its fifth assignment that the trial court “erred in finding, based on limited evidence by LEG, that LEG would construct, install, operate, and maintain the pipeline in a safe manner in accordance with industry standards and in accordance with state law and federal law.”

A trial court's determination about whether to issue a permanent injunction is subject to the manifest error standard of review. Mary Moe, L.L.C. v. La. Bd. of Ethics, 03-2220 (La. 4/14/04), 875 So.2d 22. Also, as explained in Trunkline Gas, 411 So.3d at 834, “The trial judge's finding that LEG's pipelines crossing ETP's pipelines would have no adverse effect on ETP's pipelines is a factual finding in a civil matter subject to the manifest error/clearly wrong standard of review.”

Here, ETP's third and fifth assignments concern factual findings relevant to La.Civ.Code art. 720, the safety of LEG's crossings, and LEG's adherence to applicable industry standards, all of which are reviewed for manifest error.

As noted earlier, La.Civ.Code art. 720 states that “[t]he owner of the servient estate may establish thereon additional servitudes, provided they do not affect adversely the rights of the owner of the dominant estate.” But Article 720 is only the default rule. In other words, ETP contractually agreed to an even more landowner-friendly standard: under the ETP Servitudes, the landowners (FS and Martin) have the contractual right to grant additional pipeline servitudes so long as the subsequent servitudes do not “interfere unreasonably” (FS Servitude) or “unreasonably interfere” (Martin Servitude) with ETP's servitude. Yet this distinction is of little importance because the trial court made both findings—that “[t]he LEG proposed pipeline does not interfere with nor adversely affect ETP or their limited rights in accordance with the servitudes.”

The trial court found that the LEG pipeline would be constructed, operated, and maintained in accordance with industry standards, state laws, and federal laws and would not adversely affect ETP. In doing so, the trial court credited the testimony of Doyle Sanders, an expert in pipeline construction, design, and operation. Doyle concluded that the LEG pipeline, as designed, will meet or exceed industry standards and regulations.

The trial court also noted that “[t]he reality of the pipeline industry is that pipelines are regularly constructed, installed, operated and maintained in situations like the present litigation.” In reaching that conclusion, the trial court credited the testimony of LEG land manager Wendy Whitfill-Embry.

The trial court stated that it was “convinced, due [to] the evidence, that the LEG pipeline would not interfere with or adversely affect ETP[’s] existing servitudes.” The trial court then reiterated that “the LEG pipeline meets all applicable spacing, depth separation limits and other protective requirements.” By contrast, the trial court found that “[t]he evidence that ETP presented at trial is only speculative in nature concerning the LEG pipeline or its effect on ETP.” According to the trial court, “ETP did not present evidence that LEG would violate any safety or industry standard[,]” adding that ETP's concerns were “unfounded and unwarranted.”

ETP's arguments against LEG's crossing plans focus on the use of the “open cut” technique for constructing one pipeline beneath another. Yet William Sutherland, a construction manager for LEG, testified that this type of crossing is “the most safe and common method of construction, I would say probably in the world at this point.” He then testified about the details of this construction method. He even noted that the crossing guidelines published by ETP expressly contemplate the use of the open-cut technique for crossing pipelines.

Thereafter, ETP witnesses repeatedly conceded that open-cut crossings are safe. For example, Keith Bagwell, a construction and project manager for ETP, confirmed that ETP had used this technique twice in Vernon Parish within the past several years.

Nevertheless, ETP witness Michael Futch testified that the open-cut technique can cause subsidence. Michael later acknowledged that subsidence “happens every time” following a pipeline crossing. And when asked whether LEG “will be able to address any settlement that occurs at these locations[,]” Michael stated that he had “no doubt whatsoever that [LEG] has the ability.”

ETP next complains that LEG's pipeline would be separated by a minimum of two feet from ETP's pipeline, possibly making future maintenance or replacement of the pipeline more expensive and more complicated. Yet ETP's own guidelines call for the same spacing.

In summary, the record here establishes a reasonable factual basis for the findings of the trial court. Thus, the trial court did not manifestly err in finding “that the LEG pipeline would not interfere with or adversely affect ETP[’s] existing servitudes.” The trial court did not manifestly err in finding that the LEG pipeline would be constructed and maintained in a safe manner in accordance with industry standards. And the trial court did not manifestly err in denying ETP's request for permanent injunction

ETP's third and fifth assignments are without merit.

ETP's Fourth Assignment of Error

In its fourth assignment of error, ETP asserts that the trial court “committed legal error when he issued his Ruling, which violates the Louisiana Constitution and sanctions an unconstitutional taking.” This presents a mixed question of law and fact, with the former reviewed de novo and the latter reviewed for manifest error. Young v. Jindal, 10-283 (La.App. 3 Cir. 3/9/10), 33 So.3d 385.

Whether LEG's crossings amount to a “taking” depends on the language used in the ETP Servitudes and the substantive law of Louisiana. For starters, the ETP Servitudes say nothing about the depth for construction of the pipelines, other than ETP shall bury the pipelines to a depth of at least four feet. But as explained in DT Midstream, 384 So.3d at 467–68, “Any uncertainty as to the depth of the pipeline was made certain at the time the pipeline was completed.” Thus, any uncertainty as to the depth of ETP's pipelines in our case was made certain when they were completed.

In addition, the FS Servitude gives ETP the “exclusive” right to construct, operate, and maintain one pipeline. By comparison, the Martin Servitude does not mention “exclusivity.” But this difference is of no moment because even “ ‘exclusive’ pipeline servitudes do not extend to the center of the earth without express language stating as such. This means servitude holders, such as LEG, may cross beneath an existing ‘exclusive’ servitude without violating the real rights of the original servitude holder.” ETC Tiger II, 400 So.3d at 1128.

In short, ETP does not have real rights in the space below its pipelines. LEG's crossings do not “take” any right granted to ETP under the ETP Servitudes. The “takings” argument is also wrong under La.Civ.Code art. 720, which by default retains the landowner's right to grant additional servitudes. And here, the ETP Servitudes do not transfer that right to ETP.

Hence, ETP's fourth assignment is also without merit.

ETP's Sixth Assignment of Error

ETP's sixth assignment of error asserts that the trial court erred in failing to admit into evidence letters of no opposition as to nine crossings.

In relevant part, La.Code Evid. art. 103(A) states that “[e]rror may not be predicated upon a ruling which ․ excludes evidence unless a substantial right of the party is affected, and ․ the substance of the evidence was made known to the court by counsel.”

Here, the substance of the excluded evidence was not made known to the court: ETP failed to proffer the excluded letters of no opposition. This assignment is therefore not properly preserved for appeal.

ETP's Seventh Assignment of Error

In its seventh assignment of error, ETP contends that the trial court “committed legal error in Ruling that the nine Vernon Crossings not contested by ETP had prescribed.” Yet this assignment appears misplaced.

In other words, we review judgments, not reasons for judgment. Succession of Hackney, 97-859 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2/4/98), 707 So.2d 1302. And the judgment before us on appeal is silent as to prescription: the judgment does not contain a ruling on prescription. Nor does it even mention the word “prescription.”

Because the soundness of the trial court's written reasons for judgment is not an issue on appeal, ETP's seventh assignment is of no moment.

ETP's Eighth Assignment of Error

ETP's eighth assignment of error asserts that the trial court “committed legal error in not admitting Mark Schroeder's testimony.”

The trial court has vast discretion in the admissibility of evidence, and its decision to admit or exclude evidence will not be reversed on appeal unless there is an abuse of that discretion. McIntosh v. McElveen, 04-1041 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2/2/05), 893 So.2d 986, writ denied, 05-528 (La. 4/29/05), 901 So.2d 1069.

Here, the trial court granted LEG's motion in limine and excluded Mr. Schroeder as an expert witness. On appeal, ETP argues that Mr. Schroeder's testimony would have provided the trial court with insight into the pipeline industry, its practices, and its policies. LEG, on the other hand, argues that Mr. Schroeder is a licensed attorney, and his proffered testimony amounts to nothing more than legal opinions and conclusions.

Under La.Code Evid. art. 702(A), “A witness who is qualified as an expert ․ may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if ․ [t]he expert's scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue.” In Wilson v. Wilson, 542 So.2d 568, 573 (La.App. 1 Cir. 1989), the first circuit cautioned that “[t]he domestic law testimony of an expert is not proper, as distinguished from foreign law testimony, on the theory that the court itself is the expert on domestic law.”

In sum, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding Mr. Schroeder as an expert witness. Mr. Schroeder's proffered testimony consists of legal opinions and conclusions, which fall within the expertise of the court.

ETP's Ninth Assignment of Error

ETP's ninth assignment of error asserts that the trial court “committed legal error by improperly applying the Louisiana Civil Code articles applicable to legal servitudes to ETP's Servitudes.” We review questions of law de novo. Evans v. Lungrin, 97-541 (La. 2/6/98), 708 So.2d 731.

In its reasons for judgment, the trial court wrote:

The claims of ETP are speculative. The claims or impacts that the proposed LEG pipeline would have on ETP are of a lesser inconvenience customarily associated with operating pipelines, and they must tolerate such as LEG's “neighbor.” The court is required “to determine the reasonableness of the conduct in light of the circumstances;” whether an action is classified as actionable damage, or a mere inconvenience. Clearly, the conduct of LEG under the circumstances is reasonable and nothing more than a lesser inconvenience to ETP.

ETP argues that Louisiana Civil Code Articles 667 through 669 (the “neighborhood” articles) govern legal servitudes and are not applicable to the ETP Servitudes. We disagree.

As noted earlier, the pipeline servitude granted to ETP is a personal servitude right of use. La.Civ.Code art. 639. A personal servitude “right of use is regulated by application of the rules governing usufruct and predial servitudes to the extent that their application is compatible with the rules governing a right of use servitude.” La.Civ.Code art. 645. To this end, the rules governing predial servitudes include the neighborhood articles: Articles 667 through 669 are included in Book II, Title IV—Predial Servitudes.

In addition, the Louisiana Supreme Court in Inabnet v. Exxon Corp., 93-681 (La. 9/6/94), 642 So.2d 1243, held that those with interests in the same piece of property are considered “neighbors” within the meaning of La.Civ.Code art. 667. And here, both ETP and LEG hold interests in the same pieces of property—the FS and Martin tracts. Thus, in our view, the neighborhood articles are compatible with the rules governing a right of use servitude.

In short, the trial court did not misapply the law. This assignment of error is without merit.

ETP's Tenth Assignment of Error

In its tenth and final assignment of error, ETP asserts that the trial court erred in denying its request for permanent injunction and in denying its request for declaratory relief. However, this assignment has not been briefed.

Rule 2–12.4 B(4) of the Uniform Rules of Louisiana Courts of Appeal states: “All assignments of error and issues for review must be briefed. The court may consider as abandoned any assignment of error or issue for review which has not been briefed.”

“It is well settled in this circuit that a party abandons assignments of error that are not briefed.” Hartman v. Hartman, 22-103, p. 6 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/7/22), 355 So.3d 114, 119.

Hence, this assignment is deemed as having been abandoned.

DISPOSITION 2

The trial court's Judgment of August 8, 2024, included a permanent injunction that, in part, enjoined the defendants—Gulf Run Transmission LLC, ETC Texas Pipeline LTD, and ET Gathering & Processing LLC—from interfering with or obstructing Louisiana Energy Gateway LLC's construction of its pipeline. Based on the parties’ stipulation, the Judgment is amended to remove that prohibition from the permanent injunction. The Judgment is affirmed in all other respects. All costs of this appeal are assessed to the defendants.

AMENDED IN PART; AFFIRMED AS AMENDED.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The three defendants are subsidiaries of Energy Transfer LP.

CHARLES G. FITZGERALD JUDGE