Lake Charles Harbor & Terminal District v. Reynolds Metal Co

Filing 269

MEMORANDUM ORDER denying 256 Lonza Group Ltd and Lonza America Inc.s Motion to Stay Case Pending Louisiana Supreme Court Ruling in Lexington Land Development, L.L.C. v. Chevron Pipeline Company; denying 257 Lonza Group Ltd and Lonza America Inc.s Motion for Status Conference. Signed by Judge James D Cain, Jr on 9/2/2021. (crt,Benoit, T)

Case 2:17-cv-01114-JDC-KK Document 269 Filed 09/02/21 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 2360

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
LAKE CHARLES DIVISION

LAKE CHARLES HARBOR &
TERMINAL DISTRICT

CASE NO. 2:17-CV-01114

VERSUS

JUDGE JAMES D. CAIN, JR.

REYNOLDS METAL CO

MAGISTRATE JUDGE KAY
MEMORANDUM ORDER

Before the Court is “Lonza Group Ltd and Lonza America Inc.’s Motion to Stay
Case Pending Louisiana Supreme Court Ruling in Lexington Land Development, L.L.C.
v. Chevron Pipeline Company” (Doc. 256); also before the Court is “Lonza Group Ltd and
Lonza America Inc.’s Motion for Status Conference” (Doc. 257).
Lonza Group Ltd. and Lonza America Inc. (collectively referred to as “Lonza”)
request that his Court stay all activity in this matter pending the Louisiana Supreme Court’s
Ruling on an Application for Writs of Certiorari and Review in Lexington Land
Development v. Chevron Pipeline Company, 2020-622, p. 16 (La.App. 1 Cir. 5/25/2021),
writs applied for, 2021-1194 (08/12/2021) which was filed on August 12, 2021. According
to Lonza, the Writ Application seeks review of the Louisiana First Circuit Court of
Appeal’s ruling that (1) Lexington Land Development’s Louisiana Civil Code article 2683
claim was subject to a one-year prescriptive period, and (2) upholding the district court’s
grant of a summary judgment in favor of defendant, Chevron as to plaintiff’s Louisiana
Civil Code article 2683 claim. Lake Charles Harbor & Terminal District (the “District”)
opposes the stay and Reynolds Metal Company (“Reynolds”) consents to the stay.

Case 2:17-cv-01114-JDC-KK Document 269 Filed 09/02/21 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 2361

As noted by Lonza, here, there is a pending Motion for Summary Judgment which
maintains that the District’s claims under Louisiana Civil Code article 2683 are prescribed.
Lonza moves to stay any pending motions and suspend any deadlines until the Louisiana
Supreme Court rules on the above-mentioned Writ Application.
The District suggests that Lonza has materially misrepresented the First Circuit
ruling in Lexington Land Dev., L.L.C., ___So.3d___, 2021 WL 210932, reh’g denied (July
13, 2021). The District contends that the state trial judge departed from well-established
law that Article 2683(3) claims prescribe in ten (10) years without citing law in support of
its opinion.

The District informs the Court that “the First Circuit expressly

‘[p]retermitt[ed] the soundness of the trial court’s stated reasons and basis for its
ruling’ regarding Article 2683(3) and affirmed the grant of summary judgment on
other grounds.”1 Lexington Land, 2021 WL 2102932 at *14 (emphasis added). The First
Circuit held that Lexington had no right to sue defendants based on assignments obtained
from mineral servitude owners after the mineral and surface leases expired (citing Global
Marketing Solutions, L.L.C. v. Blue Mill Farms, Inc.,153 So.3d 1209, 1216 (La.App. 1 Cir.
9/19/14) .
“A district court has broad discretion to stay proceedings and to control its docket
in order to promote ‘economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.’”
Hungerford v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 2016 WL 4499461, at *1 (W.D. La. Aug. 23, 2016)
(quoting Landis v. N.Am.Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936)). “The moving party must show a

1

Plaintiff’s opposition to Motion to Stay, p. 2, Doc. 259.

Page 2 of 3

Case 2:17-cv-01114-JDC-KK Document 269 Filed 09/02/21 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 2362

clear case of hardship or inequity in being required to proceed if there is even a fair
possibility that the stay would harm another Party,” and “such considerations ‘are counsels
of moderation rather than limitations upon power.’” Id. (quoting Landis, 299 U.S. at 255).
The Court notes that this case is now approximately four (4) years old, and Plaintiff
has an interest in having it fully and expeditiously adjudicated. Furthermore, this Court is
quite capable of reviewing and interpreting the law on prescriptive issues. Finally, the
Court finds that Lonza has failed to show a “clear case of hardship or inequity.”
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Lonza Group Ltd and Lonza America Inc.’s Motion to Stay
Case Pending Louisiana Supreme Court Ruling in Lexington Land Development, L.L.C.
v. Chevron Pipeline Company (Doc. 256) is hereby DENIED;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Lonza Group Ltd and Lonza America Inc.’s
Motion for Status Conference (Doc. 257) is hereby DENIED.
THUS DONE AND SIGNED in Chambers on this 2nd day of September, 2021.

__________________________________________
JAMES D. CAIN, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 3 of 3