J-Lu Ltd. v. Will-Drill Res., Inc.

Full title: J-LU LTD CO, ET AL. v. WILL-DRILL RESOURCES, INC., ET AL.

Court: STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

Date published: Aug 31, 2016

Docket Number: 16 00418-CW (La. Ct. App. Aug. 31, 2016)

Opinion

Docket Number: 16 00418-CW

08-31-2016

J-LU LTD CO, ET AL. v. WILL-DRILL RESOURCES, INC., ET AL.

Hunter William Lundy Lundy, Lundy, Soileau & South P. O. Box 3010 Lake Charles LA 70602 Jackey White South Lundy, Lundy, Soileau & South 501 Broad Street Lake Charles LA 70602 Daniel A. Kramer Lundy, Lundy, Soileau & South P. O. Box 3010 Lake Charles LA 70602 Candace P. Howay Lundy, Lundy, Soileau 501 Broad Street Lake Charles LA 70602-3010 Jonathan Hadley Fontenot Attorney at Law P. O. Box 4407 Lake Charles LA 70606 cc: Philip Edward Downer, III, Counsel for the Applicant Jacob M. Oakley, Counsel for the Applicant

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

Hunter William Lundy
Lundy, Lundy, Soileau & South
P. O. Box 3010
Lake Charles LA 70602 Jackey White South
Lundy, Lundy, Soileau & South
501 Broad Street
Lake Charles LA 70602 Daniel A. Kramer
Lundy, Lundy, Soileau & South
P. O. Box 3010
Lake Charles LA 70602 Candace P. Howay
Lundy, Lundy, Soileau
501 Broad Street
Lake Charles LA 70602-3010 Jonathan Hadley Fontenot
Attorney at Law
P. O. Box 4407
Lake Charles LA 70606

Writ Application from Beauregard Parish Case No. C-2014-0383

BEFORE JUDGES: Hon. Jimmie C. Peters Hon. James T. Genovese Hon. Shannon J. Gremillion As counsel of record in the captioned case, you are hereby notified that the ruling on the application for rehearing filed by James Michael Roberson, Jr., et al is:

REHEARING GRANTED.
WRIT DENIED. We find that the dispute herein is a simple, contractual dispute which has no effect on any order of the Commissioner of the Office of Conservation. The relators and respondents entered into a contract whereby the respondents would develop the property at issue for all parties. The relators do not attack the Commissioner's existing order, but instead, question the way the respondents have implemented that order. Additionally, the respondents do not seek a permanent injunction to prohibit the Commissioner from issuing additional orders. Instead, the relators seek to prevent the respondents from causing the relators more damages by continuing to violate their contract. Accordingly, we conclude that the Commissioner has no interest in the litigation and that the Commissioner's authority would not be called into question; thus, we hereby deny the writ.

cc: Philip Edward Downer, III, Counsel for the Applicant

Jacob M. Oakley, Counsel for the Applicant