Opinion
CA 12-1109 CA 12-1110
10-24-2012
ROWDY SMITH v. HILCORP ENERGY CORPORATION, ET AL. WYNN RUNG v. HILCORP ENERGY CORPORATION, ET AL.
Karen W. Shipman Amanda Howard Lowe Kean Miller COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT: Performance Wellhead & Frac Components, Inc. John Edmund McElligott, Jr. Kevin M. Dills Davidson, Meaux, etc. COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTS: First Mercury Ins. Co. Hookup and Pipeline Construction, Inc. Musa Rahman Johnson, Stiltner & Rahman COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE: Louisiana Workers' Compensation Fund Patrick J. McShane Danica C. Benbow Kathleen Pontier Rice Frilot L.L.C. COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTS: Hookup and Pipeline Construction, Inc. First Mercury Ins. Co. Robert Michael Kallam Jonathan L. Woods Preis, Kraft, & Roy COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE: Greene's Energy Group Michael J. Remondet, Jr. Jeansonne & Remondet COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE: EPI Consulting Co. Kevin Paul Merchant Cliff A. Lacour Laborde & Neuner COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE: Hilcorp Energy Company Jason P. Bergeron Attorney at Law COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE: Hilcorp Energy Company Vanessa L. Waguespack Liskow & Lewis COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE: Hilcorp Energy Company Rusty Galloway Galloway & Jeffcoat, LLP COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS/APPELLEES: Wynn Rung, Jr. Rowdy Smith
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
APPEAL FROM THE
SIXTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF ST. MARTIN, NO. 75502 & 75580
HONORABLE CHARLES LEE PORTER, DISTRICT JUDGE
JAMES T. GENOVESE
JUDGE
Court composed of Elizabeth A. Pickett, James T. Genovese, and Shannon J. Gremillion, Judges.
MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS DENIED. Karen W. Shipman
Amanda Howard Lowe
Kean Miller
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT:
Performance Wellhead & Frac Components, Inc.
John Edmund McElligott, Jr.
Kevin M. Dills
Davidson, Meaux, etc.
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTS:
First Mercury Ins. Co.
Hookup and Pipeline Construction, Inc.
Musa Rahman
Johnson, Stiltner & Rahman
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE:
Louisiana Workers' Compensation Fund
Patrick J. McShane
Danica C. Benbow
Kathleen Pontier Rice
Frilot L.L.C.
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTS:
Hookup and Pipeline Construction, Inc.
First Mercury Ins. Co.
Robert Michael Kallam
Jonathan L. Woods
Preis, Kraft, & Roy
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE:
Greene's Energy Group
Michael J. Remondet, Jr.
Jeansonne & Remondet
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE:
EPI Consulting Co.
Kevin Paul Merchant
Cliff A. Lacour
Laborde & Neuner
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE:
Hilcorp Energy Company
Jason P. Bergeron
Attorney at Law
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE:
Hilcorp Energy Company
Vanessa L. Waguespack
Liskow & Lewis
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE:
Hilcorp Energy Company
Rusty Galloway
Galloway & Jeffcoat, LLP
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS/APPELLEES:
Wynn Rung, Jr.
Rowdy Smith
GENOVESE , Judge.
Appellants, Performance Wellhead & Frac Components, Inc.; Hookup and Pipeline Construction, Inc.; and First Mercury Insurance Company, filed a Motion to Stay Proceedings directly with this court. Specifically, Appellants seek an order staying the trial court proceedings pending resolution of the captioned consolidated appeals.
The underlying suits arise from a flash fire from which plaintiffs, Wynn Rung, Jr., and Rowdy Smith, sustained damages. The captioned appeals, however, arise from adverse judgments enforcing defense and indemnity demands against Appellants. Because the defense and indemnity issues before this court are separate and distinct from the liability issues before the trial court, we find that jurisdiction over the liability issues, as well as any other issues not raised in the instant appeals, remains with the trial court. La.Code Civ.P. art. 2088.
We find it significant to note that Appellants requested similar stays of the trial court proceedings in November of 2011 and May of 2012. In both instances, the trial court issued interlocutory judgments denying Appellants' motions. Appellants failed to seek supervisory review of these judgments. We further note that the trial judge, in denying Appellants' most recent request for a stay, stated that he was open to reconsidering Appellants' request to stay the trial court proceedings if a ruling had not been issued by this court when the trial date approached. The trial date of these consolidated matters has since been set for January 7, 2013. Thus, Appellants' have the available remedy to re-urge their motion to stay the proceedings with the trial court.
For the reasons assigned, we hereby deny Appellants' motion.
MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS DENIED.
THIS OPINION IS NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION.
Rule 2-16.3 Uniform Rules, Court of Appeal.