D & D Drilling & Exploration, Inc. v. XTO Energy, Inc.

Citations: 191 So. 3d 1166; 15 La.App. 3 Cir. 626; 2016 La. App. LEXIS 871; 2016 WL 2342359Docket: Nos. 15-626, 15-631

Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal; May 4, 2016; Louisiana; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Venue is determined to be improper in Concordia Parish for the case involving D. D Drilling Exploration, Inc. against XTO Energy, Inc. and others, leading to a transfer to the Twenty-Eighth Judicial District Court. D. D filed suit on December 14, 2014, in Concordia Parish, claiming damages for the loss of its drilling rig, Rig 1, which occurred on July 14, 2014, in LaSalle Parish. The suit included claims against XTO under contract and against other defendants in tort. D. D is domiciled in Concordia Parish, while XTO is a Delaware corporation served in Baton Rouge, and the other defendants are domiciled in LaSalle Parish. 

XTO and the other defendants filed exceptions of improper venue, which were initially denied. Subsequently, they sought supervisory writs, leading to a Louisiana Supreme Court remand for further review. According to Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure, a suit involving multiple defendants must be filed in a parish of proper venue for all parties, with specific rules governing venue based on the domicile or location of business of the defendants. The court's analysis highlighted that the venue must comply with these rules, which ultimately led to the conclusion that Concordia Parish was not a proper venue for this case.

A foreign corporation or limited liability company not licensed in the state, or a nonresident without a legally appointed agent for service of process, can be brought to court in the parish of the plaintiff's domicile or where process is served. Conversely, a nonresident with a designated agent must be brought to the parish of the agent's post office address. Foreign or alien insurers must be brought in East Baton Rouge Parish. Under Article 42, actions against Alliance, Mr. Pritchard, and James River (Alliance's insurer) are proper in LaSalle Parish, while actions against XTO and James River are proper in East Baton Rouge. Concordia Parish is not an appropriate venue under Article 42 but has exceptions. Generally, the mover or exceptor bears the burden of proof, while a plaintiff invoking venue exceptions carries the burden of proof.

One relevant exception is found in La.Code Civ. P. art. 76.1, allowing actions on contracts to be brought in the parish where the contract was executed or where work was performed. Since D. D executed the contract in Concordia Parish, venue is appropriate there for XTO, and also in LaSalle Parish where the work was performed. Another pertinent exception is La.Code Civ. P. art. 74, which permits actions for damages from offenses or quasi offenses in the parish where the wrongful conduct occurred or where damages were sustained. D. D's tort claims against Alliance and Mr. Pritchard establish venue in LaSalle Parish. However, the court disagrees with D. D's argument that damages should be considered sustained in Concordia Parish, reinforcing that damages are sustained in the parish of wrongful conduct, consistent with established jurisprudence.

Public policy, as determined by the Coursey-Foster-King-Williams-Lapeyrouse courts, emphasizes minimizing forum shopping in damage recovery actions. D. D’s lawsuit is based on the loss of Rig 1, which occurred in LaSalle Parish, establishing it as the sole proper venue under Article 74. Article 76.1 allows for contract actions to be initiated in the parish where the contract was executed or where work was performed; since D. D executed the contract in Concordia Parish, it could also be considered a proper venue. However, this does not extend to Alliance, Mr. Pritchard, or James River as joint or solidary obligors of XTO because La.Code Civ. P. art. 73 restricts venue exceptions to those outlined in Article 42. D. D claims a verbal agreement with Alliance that could support venue in Concordia Parish, but failed to allege or provide evidence of such an agreement. Additionally, it argued that the retainer of Alliance and Pritchard by XTO constituted a stipulation pour autri for its benefit, but no written contract was presented to substantiate this claim. The burden of proof lies with the party claiming the stipulation, and since D. D did not prove its existence, the venue issue remains unaddressed. D. D also contended that Alliance, Mr. Pritchard, and James River waived their venue objections by filing answers before seeking writs. This claim was rejected, as the parties demonstrated timely intent to seek supervisory writs to avoid default judgments. The trial court's judgment denying the defendants’ exceptions regarding improper venue was reversed, and the case was ordered transferred to the Twenty-Eighth Judicial District Court, with costs taxed to D. D Drilling Exploration, Inc. Relevant statutes include Louisiana Revised Statutes 13:3203, allowing venue at the plaintiff's domicile for nonresident defendants, and Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure art. 76 for insurance policy actions.