![]() ![]() Defendants framed the question to be whether the plaintiff is seeking recovery of profits earned or costs avoided. ![]() The Court was “not inclined to dismiss these claims at this point” (its phrasing throughout the order).Ĭivil Code 4864, for civil fruits from property. 2322 does not apply because the unidentified equipment that Chevron owns is not a “building” as required. The court declined to dismiss these two claims their viability will be developed in discovery.Ĭivil Code Arts 23, premises liability: Defendants argued Art. Mineral Code Article 11: The owner of land burdened by mineral rights and the owner of the mineral rights must exercise their respective rights with reasonable regard for those of the other. Plaintiff responded that it acquired the land before 1996 and an amendment limiting the definition of ultrahazardous activity did not apply to pre-1996 activities. They can be and routinely are performed safely with the exercise of reasonable care. 667 absolute liability: Defendants claimed oil and gas E&P activities are not ultrahazardous. The court considered the following claims:Ĭivil Code Art. The order is helpful as a laundry list of claims often asserted by legacy plaintiffs. This the court did not offer much in the way of reasoning for its rulings there will be plenty of time for that. On the other hand, a complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief. To defeat the motion the plaintiff had to plead specific facts, not mere conclusory allegations or legal conclusions masquerading as factual conclusions. Faulconer, Inc., and their predecessors, improperly disposed of toxic and hazardous oilfield wastes in unlined earthen pits causing leaks, spills and other surface and subsurface damages and contaminating the soil and groundwater.ĭefendants’ filed a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the whole shebang for failure to state a claim. Chevron is another Louisiana legacy lawsuit, this one claiming that defendants Chevron and Vernon E.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |