Opinion
No. 2021-C-01610
03-22-2022
LOUISIANA WETLANDS, LLC and New 90, LLC v. ENERGEN RESOURCES CORPORATION, Chevron USA, Inc., Southern Natural Gas Company, LLC, EP Energy E&P Company, LP, and Brammer Engineering, Inc.
Application for reconsideration not considered. See Louisiana Supreme Court Rule IX, § 6.
Weimer, C.J., concurs and assigns reasons.
Hughes, J., would grant.
Genovese, J., would grant and assigns reasons.
WEIMER, C.J., concurs in the refusal to reconsider.
Although I previously voted to grant the writ application in this matter, I am constrained by La. S.Ct. Rule IX, § 6 to deny this request for reconsideration.
Genovese, J., would grant and assigns the following reasons:
Supreme Court Rule IX ; Sec. 6; states that that "[a]n application for rehearing will not be considered when the court has merely granted or denied an application for a writ of certiorari or a remedial or other supervisory writ. ..." In this case, plaintiffs’ original writ was denied
Consequently, plaintiffs filed an application for rehearing (reconsideration), which was "not considered," citing Supreme Court Rule IX, Sec. 6 (hereinabove referred to).
The problem I have implementing this supreme court rule, and not considering this application for rehearing (reconsideration), is the fact that not all applications for rehearing (reconsideration) after a writ denial are "not considered." Some have been granted, and there lies the inconsistency. I find merit in this application for reconsideration, and it should not be brushed off as "not considered." Either the rule must be amended, or else all applications for rehearing (reconsideration) must not be considered. There must be consistency. I find this writ denial and subsequent rehearing (reconsideration) denial warrants a grant and docket. If the rule has been broken once before (and it has on more than one occasion), it can be broken again—until it is fixed via consistent as opposed to arbitrary application.