In Martin v. JKD Investmens, LLC, the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit, rejected a plaintiff's fraud claim because the plaintiff had failed to read the contract that he signed which transferred the mineral rights on his property to JKD Investments, LLC ("JKD").
Click here to read more.
Continue Reading...By Kindall James
The issue of whether an individual employee is personally liable for oilfield environmental damages was recently addressed in Kling Realty Co., Inc. v. Texaco, Inc, 2007 WL 81665 (W.D. La. 2007). The plaintiff mineral lessors claimed that their property had been damaged by oilfield operations, and sued not only the operator, but also a production supervisor. The plaintiffs argued that the supervisor was individually liable because in his supervisory capacity he had the duty to prevent or limit hazardous pollution affecting the property. Finding that the plaintiff failed to present any evidence that the supervisor’s responsibilities entailed more than general administrative responsibilities or that the supervisor knew or should have known of any ongoing activities hazardous to the property, the court held that the plaintiffs could not possibly establish that the supervisor was personally liable for their damages, and dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims against him.
Continue Reading...In Duplantier v. BP Amoco, et al., the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal held that under Act 312 of 2006 (La. R.S. 30:29), there should be a single trial of both the regulatory remediation covered by the statute and the plaintiffs' separate damages claims (if any). The Louisiana Supreme Court has now denied a writ application with respect to that opinion. To view the Fourth Circuit's decision, click here. Act 312, which became effective June 8, 2006, requires involvement of the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources (DNR) in litigation alleging environmental contamination, including submission of any remediation plan to DNR for approval and the deposit of remediation funds into the registry of the court to be spent on remediation, rather than payment of those funds to the plaintiffs. However, the statute also preserves the plaintiffs' right to pursue any private cause of action - for example, a right under an express lease provision to a higher standard of clean-up. Under the Duplantier decision, both the statutory remediation and any private claims will be addressed in a single trial before any plan is submitted to DNR.
Enter keywords:
