STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST CIRCUIT

NO. 2018 CA 1626

ASSUMPTION PARISH POLICE JURY

I VERSUS

TEXAS BRINE COMPANY, L.L.C. AND OCCIDENTAL CHEMICAL CORPORATION

CONSOLIDATED WITH

NO. 2018 CA 1627

ASSUMPTION PARISH SHERIFF MIKE WAGUESPACK

Y VERSUS

TEXAS BRINE COMPANY, L.L.C. AND OCCIDENTAL CHEMICAL CORPORATION

CONSOLIDATED WITH

NO. 2018 CA 1628

STATE OF LOUISIANA

VERSUS

TEXAS BRINE COMPANY, L.L.C. AND OCCIDENTAL CHEMICAL CORPORATION

Judgment Rendered.

JUN 2 4 2020 Appealed from the 23rd Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of Assumption State of Louisiana Case Nos. 34386, 34389, 34391

The Honorable Thomas Kliebert, Jr., Judge Presiding Leopold Z. Sher Counsel for Appellant James M. Garner Texas Brine Company, L.L.C. Peter L. Hilbert, Jr. Jeffrey D. Kessler New Orleans, Louisiana

Robert Ryland Percy, III Gonzales, Louisiana

James E. Kuhn Ponchatoula, Louisiana

Eric J. Mayer Houston, Texas

Travis J. Turner Gonzales, Louisiana

Dane S. Ciolino Metairie, Louisiana

Theodore L. Jones Baton Rouge, Louisiana

Joseph L. Shea, Jr. Counsel for Appellee Katherine Smith Baker Reliance Petroleum Corporation Ashley G. Gable Joshua S. Chevallier Shreveport, Louisiana

Matthew J. Randazzo, III Counsel for Appellees Christopher B. Bailey Browning Oil Company, Inc., Will Montz LORCA Corporation and Colorado Shawn A. Carter Crude Company Joshua S. Barnhill Lafayette, Louisiana

Erika L. Bright Jeffrey L. Mills Dallas, Texas

Franklin H. Spruiell, Jr. Counsel for Appellee Reid A. Jones Sol Kirschner Seth M. Moyers Shreveport, Louisiana

BEFORE: GUIDRY, THERIOT, AND PENZATO, JJ.

THERIOT, J.

This appeal is one of many arising from the Bayou Come sinkhole that developed on August 3, 2012, following the collapse of a salt mine cavern connected with the operation of a brine production well known as the Oxy Geismer by defendant/ third-party plaintiff, Texas Brine Company, LLC (" Texas Brine").

Herein, Texas Brine challenges the district court judgment sustaining the

peremptory exceptions of res judicata and collateral estoppel filed by Reliance Petroleum Corporation, LORCA Corporation, Colorado Crude Company, Sol

Kirschner, and Browning Oil Company, Inc. ( collectively, " the Oil and Gas

Parties") and dismissing its claims against the Oil and Gas Parties with prejudice.

In response to the claims asserted against it in the Pipeline cases', Texas

Brine filed nearly identical third -party demands against various parties therein, as well as in the instant litigation. Following the district court' s summary dismissal of Texas Brine' s third -party demands against the Oil & Gas Parties in the Pipeline cases, the Oil and Gas Parties filed separate, but identical, peremptory exceptions of res judicata and collateral estoppel in the underlying litigation. The district

court sustained the Oil and Gas Parties' exceptions, issuing a signed judgment on April 10, 2018, ordering that " Texas Brine Company, LLC' s claims against the Oil and Gas Parties in the above -captioned matter are DISMISSED WITH

PREJUDICE on the basis of res judicata and collateral estoppel."

The same issues before us in the instant appeal were recently decided by this court in related appeals, Marchand v. Texas Brine Company, LLC, 2019- 0052 La.App. 1 Cir. 12/ 27/ 19), So. 3d , 2019 WL 7206880, and Labarre v.

Occidental Chemical Company, 2019- 0624 ( La.App. 1 Cir. 2/ 19/ 20), 2020 WL

1 The Pipeline cases were several of many arising from the 2012 sinkhole and include: Crosstex Energy Services, LP v. Texas Brine Company, LLC, No. 34, 202, 23`d Judicial District Court, Assumption Parish; Pontchartrain Natural Gas System v. Texas Brine Company, LLC, No. 34,265, 23 d Judicial District Court, Assumption Parish; and Florida Gas Transmission Company v. Texas Brine Company, LLC, No. 34, 316, 23`d Judicial District Court, Assumption Parish.

813269. In Marchand and Labarre, this court affirmed similar judgments granting the Oil and Gas Parties' peremptory exceptions of res judicata and collateral estoppel. After a thorough review of the record, we find no material distinctions

between the evidence and arguments asserted in this appeal and those presented in Marchand and Labarre. The exact same background, issues, and assignments of

error raised by Texas Brine in this case have already been thoroughly discussed in Marchand, which we are bound to follow under the " law of the circuit doctrine,"

which requires us to follow our prior decisions. See Pontchartrain Natural Gas

System v. Texas Brine Company, LLC, 2018- 0001, p. 2 ( La.App. 1 Cir. 6/ 4/ 18), 253 So. 3d 156 ( Mem), writ denied, 2018- 1124 ( La. 9/ 28/ 18), 253 So. 3d 147

Mem). Moreover, the summary dismissal of Texas Brine' s third -party demands against the Oil and Gas Parties in the related Pipeline cases, which formed the

basis of the Oil and Gas Parties' res judicata and collateral estoppel objections, has

been affirmed on appellate review.2 We issue this summary disposition in accordance with Uniform Rules of Louisiana Courts of Appeal, Rule 2- 16. 2( A)(2), ( 4), and ( 6), and affirm the district

court' s April 10, 2018 judgment, sustaining the exceptions raising the objections of res judicata and collateral estoppel and dismissing, with prejudice, Texas Brine' s third -party demands against Reliance Petroleum Corporation, LORCA

2 See Pontchartrain Natural Gas System v. Texas Brine Company, LLC, 2018- 0606 ( La.App. 1 Cir. 12/ 21/ 18), 268 So. 3d 1058, writ denied, 2019- 0526 ( La. 6/ 17/ 19), 273 So. 3d 1210 ( Mem); Crosstex Energy Services, LP v. Texas Brine Company, LLC, 2018- 0749 ( La.App. 1 Cir. 2/ 27/ 19), 2019 WL 969564 ( unpublished); Florida Gas Transmission Company, LLC v. Texas Brine Company, LLC, 2018- 0549 ( La.App. 1 Cir. 7/ 1/ 19), 2019 WL 2723560 ( unpublished), writ denied, 2019- 01227 ( La. 10/ 15/ 19), 280 So. 3d 611 ( Mem); Crosstex Energy Services, LP v. Texas Brine Company, LLC, 2018- 1213 ( La.App. 1 Cir. 7/ 11/ 19), 2019 WL 3049762 unpublished), writ denied, 2019- 01126 ( La. 7/ 17/ 19), 277 So. 3d 1180 ( Mem); Pontchartrain Natural Gas System v. Texas Brine Company, LLC, 2018- 1170 ( La.App. 1 Cir. 11/ 15/ 19), So. 3d 2019 WL 6044633 ( Mem); Florida Gas Transmission Company, LLC v. Texas Brine Company, LLC, 2018- 1778 ( La.App. 1 Cir. 12/ 27/ 19), So. 3d , 2019 WL 7206876 Mem); Pontchartrain Natural Gas System v. Texas Brine Company, LLC, 2018- 0631 ( La.App. Cir. 7/ 3/ 19), 281 So. 3d 1, writ denied, 2019- 01423 ( La. 11/ 12/ 19), 282 So. 3d 224 ( Mem); Florida Gas Transmission Company, LLC v. Texas Brine Company, LLC, 2018- 0842 ( La.App. 1 Cir. 8/ 5/ 19), 2019 WL 3561807 ( unpublished); Crosstex Energy Services, LP v. Texas Brine Company, LLC, 2018- 0900 ( La.App. 1 Cir. 8/ 5/ 19), 2019 WL 3561759 ( unpublished).

Corporation, Colorado Crude Company, Sol Kirschner, and Browning Oil

Company, Inc. All costs of this appeal are assessed to Texas Brine Company, LLC.

AFFIRMED.

R