FLORIDA GAS TRANSMISSION COMPANY LLC v. TEXAS BRINE COMPANY LLC (2024)

Application for reconsideration not considered. See Louisiana Supreme Court Rule IX, § 6.

For the reasons I would have granted defendant's writ application, I would grant reconsideration and grant and docket this case. As I explained previously, I am troubled by the court of appeal's previous internal practice of their “writing-judge rule” that dictated that all subsequent appeals from the same district court were assigned to a panel that included the prior author of an opinion of that case. This “ill practice” raises concern over the validity of the judgments issued before the court amended its internal rules in 2019 to bring itself into compliance with the new legislation amending La. R.S. 13:319 and enacting La. C.C.P. art. 2164.1 requiring random allotment of appellate panels. Furthermore, defendant's application alleges there exists a circuit split on the cause of action for nullity based on an ill practice.

Accordingly, I find applicant has presented sufficient writ grant considerations under La. Sup. Ct. Rule X ¹ to warrant granting and docketing this matter, and for that reason, I would grant defendant's application for reconsideration of this Court's denial of his writ application. As I have stated before, while Supreme Court Rule IX, § 6 prohibits reconsideration of a writ denial, an exception to this rule must exist in order to further the interest of justice in certain extraordinary circumstances where good cause is shown. See Dillard Dep't Stores, Inc. v. Pierson, 2022-01605, p. 1 (La. 4/4/23), 358 So.3d 861 (Crichton, J., would grant reconsideration and assigns reasons); Boutte v. Boutte, 2020-00985 (La. 2/9/21), 309 So.3d 731 (same); State v. Hauser, 20-429 (La. 10/6/20), 302 So. 3d 514 (same); Marable v. Empire Truck Sales of La., LLC, 2017-1469 (La. 11/17/17), 230 So.3d 212 (same).

FOOTNOTES

1.   La. Sup. Ct. Rule X, § 1 provides that one or more of the following must be present in order for an application to be granted: conflicting decisions, significant unresolved issues of law, overruling or modification of controlling precedents, erroneous interpretation or application of constitution or laws, and gross departure from proper judicial proceedings.

Crichton, J., would grant and assigns reasons. Genovese, J., concurs in the result. McCallum, J., would grant for reasons assigned by Crichton, J. Crain, J., recused.