UNIVERSAL SERVICES AND * NO. 2022-CA-0427 ASSOCIATES, LLC * VERSUS COURT OF APPEAL * WADE GRUNDMEYER, VAL FOURTH CIRCUIT COERVER, TAUBER OIL * COMPANY, TAUBER STATE OF LOUISIANA PETROCHEMICAL CO., ******* CHAD VERHOFF AND CAROLYN SHEFFIELD

APPEAL FROM CIVIL DISTRICT COURT, ORLEANS PARISH NO. 2021-08933, DIVISION “E” Honorable Omar Mason, Judge ****** JUDGE SANDRA CABRINA JENKINS ****** (Court composed of Judge Roland L. Belsome, Judge Sandra Cabrina Jenkins, Judge Rachael D. Johnson) BELSOME, J., CONCURS IN THE RESULT James C. Cronvich Clarence F. Favret, III Jordan T. LeBlanc FAVRET CARRIERE CRONVICH, LLC Poydras Street Suite 2300 New Orleans, LA 70130 COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT Tristan Edwards Manthey Loretta G. Mince Michael R. Dodson FISHMAN HAYGOOD, L.L.P. St. Charles Avenue Suite 4600 New Orleans, LA 70170-4600 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE LIMITED REHEARING GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED; ORIGINAL OPINION AFFIRMED MARCH 20, 2023 SCJ RDJ We grant plaintiff-appellant, Universal Services and Associates, L.L.C. (“Universal”) application for rehearing for the limited purpose of addressing its argument that this Court erred in not performing an equitable estoppel analysis.

In our January 26, 2023 opinion, we found that, although the defendant- appellees were not signatories of the Universal and Tauber contracts, they could avail themselves of the clause because Universal failed to show that the forum selection clause was “unreasonable or unjust, or that the clause is invalid for such reasons as fraud or overreaching.” Shelter Mut. Ins. Co. v. Rimkus Consulting Grp., Inc. of Louisiana, 2013-1977, p. 9 (La. 7/1/14), 148 So.3d 871, 877.

First, we note that in its original appellant’s brief, Universal argued that equitable estoppel is inapplicable because it is not attempting to enforce a right under the contracts. However, in its application for rehearing, Universal contends that an equitable estoppel analysis is needed to determine whether the forum selection clause applied to the defendant-appellees, Wade Grundmeyer, Val Coerver, WMG Enterprises, L.L.C. (“WMG”), and Coerver Enterprises, Inc.

(“Coerver Enterprises”), who were non-signatories to the contract with Tauber Oil Company. We disagree.

“It is well settled that appellate courts will not consider issues raised for the first time, which are not pleaded in the court below and which the district court has not addressed.” Hardy v. Juvenile Justice Intervention Center, 2021-0715, p. 5 (La. App. 4 Cir. 6/15/22), 342 So.3d 1076, 1080 (citing Council of City of New Orleans v. Washington, 2009-1067, pp. 3-4 (La. 5/29/09), 9 So.3d 854, 856). Furthermore, our courts “generally do not grant rehearings to consider issues raised for the first time in the application for rehearing.” Lege v. Union Carbide Corp., 2020-0252 (La. App. 4 Cir. 5/12/21), ---So.3d ----, 2021 WL 1917784, * 2 (quoting Rodrigue v. LeGros, 563 So.2d 248, 257 (La. 1990) (internal citation omitted).

Accordingly, we decline to consider for the first time on appeal, Universal’s argument that an equitable estoppel analysis is needed to determine the applicability of the forum selection clause.

For these reasons, we grant a limited rehearing, deny relief, and affirm our original opinion.

LIMITED REHEARING GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED; ORIGINAL OPINION AFFIRMED