Cooper v. Amerada Hess Corp.

• Decision Date: 15 September 2000
• Docket Number: No. 20,412.,20,412.
• Citation: 129 N.M. 710,13 P.3d 68
• Parties: Jimmie T. COOPER, Individually and as Trustee for the Jimmie T. Cooper and Betty P. Cooper Revocable Trust and Betty P. Cooper, Individually and as Trustee for the Jimmie T. Cooper and Betty P. Cooper Revocable Trust, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. AMERADA HESS CORPORATION; Chevron U.S.A., Inc.; Dynegy Corporation f/k/a NGC Corporation, f/k/a Warren Petroleum Corporation; Concho Resources, Inc.; Primero Operating Co., Ltd.; Rhombus Operating Co., Ltd.; Rhombus Energy Co.; Arch Petroleum, Inc.; and Rice Engineering Corporation, Defendants-Appellees.
• Court: Court of Appeals of New Mexico

13 P.3d 68

129 N.M. 710

Jimmie T. COOPER, Individually and as Trustee for the Jimmie T. Cooper and Betty P. Cooper Revocable Trust and Betty P. Cooper, Individually and as Trustee for the Jimmie T. Cooper and Betty P. Cooper Revocable Trust, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. AMERADA HESS CORPORATION; Chevron U.S.A., Inc.; Dynegy Corporation f/k/a NGC Corporation, f/k/a Warren Petroleum Corporation; Concho Resources, Inc.; Primero Operating Co., Ltd.; Rhombus Operating Co., Ltd.; Rhombus Energy Co.; Arch Petroleum, Inc.; and Rice Engineering Corporation, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 20,412.

Court of Appeals of New Mexico.

September 15, 2000.

Certiorari Granted November 20, 2000.

J.E. Gallegos, Michael J. Condon, Gallegos Law Firm, P.C., Santa Fe, NM, Craig Lewis, Andrew Sher, Gallagher, Young, Lewis, Hampton & Downey, Houston, TX, Robert L. Love, Robert L. Love, P.C., Hobbs, NM, for Appellants.

Bradford C. Berge, Anthony F. Medeiros, Campbell, Carr, Berge & Sheridan, P.A., Santa Fe, NM, for Appellee Amerada Hess Corporation.

Sharon Sandle, Maddox Law Firm, Hobbs, NM, for Appellee Dynegy Corporation.

Phillip T. Brewer, Roswell, NM, for Appellee Primero Operating, Inc.

Thomas D. Haines, Jr., Hinkle, Cox, Eaton, Coffield & Hensley, L.L.P., Roswell, NM, for Appellee Arch Petroleum, Inc.

Michael R. Comeau, Comeau, Maldegen, Templeman & Indall, L.L.P., Santa Fe, NM, for Appellee Rice Engineering, Inc.

Rod M. Schumacher, Barbara A. Reddy, Atwood, Malone, Turner & Sabin, P.A., Roswell, NM, for Appellee Chevron USA, Inc.

Gregory Burch, Liddell, Sapp, Zivley, Hill & LaBoon, L.L.P., Houston, TX, for Dynegy Corporation.

Don M. Fedric, Hunker-Fedric, P.A., Roswell, NM, for Appellees Rhombus Operating Co., Ltd. & Rhombus Energy Co.

Rick G. Strange, Cotton, Bledsoe, Tighe & Dawson, Midland, TX, for Appellee Concho Resources, Inc.

Frank McCallum, Midland, TX, for Appellee Rice Engineering, Inc.

Certiorari Granted, No. 26,609, November 20, 2000.

OPINION

ALARID, Judge.

{1} This case requires us to decide where venue lies in a common-law environmental action involving multiple defendants. The trial court, believing that the action involved an interest in land located in Lea County, ruled that venue was improper in Santa Fe County and dismissed the entire case. As we explain more fully below, although Plaintiffs' claims arise out of alleged injury to real property, Plaintiffs' claims nevertheless are transitory claims for purposes of our general venue statute. Applying our general venue statute, we affirm in part, and reverse in part.

BACKGROUND

{2} The facts relevant to the issue of venue are straightforward and undisputed. Plaintiffs own and reside on the Monument Springs Ranch in Lea County. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants have engaged in, or are presently engaged in, oil and gas production, disposal, and transportation operations on the property. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants have spilled, leaked, and otherwise released hydrocarbons, salt water, and other substances dangerous to human life and welfare onto portions of the property, and that Defendants' acts and omissions have facilitated migration of these substances through the surface and subsurface soils and into the underlying groundwater. Plaintiffs have asserted claims for negligence, trespass, nuisance, unjust enrichment, and infliction of emotional distress. Plaintiffs have requested money damages for the costs of investigating, assessing, and remedying the alleged pollution, or alternatively, an amount representing the diminished market value of Plaintiffs' property. Plaintiffs also requested injunctive relief, apparently to restrain Defendants from further tortious acts. Plaintiffs later moved to file an amended complaint omitting the request for injunctive relief. Plaintiffs' motion to amend was pending when the case was dismissed for improper venue.

{3} Defendants Amerada Hess Corporation (Amerada); Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. (Chevron); Dynegy Corporation (Dynegy); Concho Resources, Inc. (Concho); Rhombus Energy Co.(Rhombus Energy); Arch Petroleum, Inc. (Arch); and Rice Engineering, Inc. (Rice); are all foreign corporations. Defendant Rhombus Operating Co., Ltd. (Rhombus Operating) is a Texas limited partnership. Defendant Primero Operating Co., Ltd (Primero) is a New Mexico corporation, whose principal place of business is in Chaves County. Defendants Rhombus Energy and Rhombus Operating have appointed a Chaves County attorney as their registered agent for service. Defendants Amerada, Chevron, Dynegy, Concho, Arch, and Rice have designated either CT Corporation System, whose address is 123 East Marcy Street in Santa Fe, or Prentice Hall Corporation System, whose address is 121 E. Palace Avenue in Santa Fe, as their registered agents.

{4} Defendants¹ moved to dismiss for improper venue. The trial court dismissed the complaint without prejudice as to all Defendants based on the conclusion that the relief requested by Plaintiffs' complaint affected an interest in land within the meaning of NMSA 1978, § 38-3-1(D)(1), and that Santa Fe County therefore was an improper venue for an action affecting lands located in Lea County.

DISCUSSION

1. STANDARD OF REVIEW

{5} A motion to dismiss for improper venue raises a question of law, which this Court reviews de novo. See Williams v. Board of County Comm'rs of San Juan County, 1998-NMCA-090, ¶ 28, 125 N.M. 445, 963 P.2d 522

. "In determining venue, the court must look to the complaint and the character of the judgment [that] may be rendered." United Nuclear Corp. v. Fort, 102 N.M. 756, 760, 700 P.2d 1005, 1009 (Ct. App.1985).

2. DOES THIS LAWSUIT INVOLVE LANDS OR AN INTEREST IN LANDS?

{6} New Mexico's general venue statute is codified at NMSA 1978, § 38-3-1 (1876, as amended through 1988). The principal question presented by this appeal is whether Plaintiffs' claims involve an interest in lands within the meaning of Section 38-3-1(D)(1). That statute provides as follows: "When lands or any interest in lands are the object of any suit in whole or in part, the suit shall be brought in the county where the land or any portion of the land is situate."

{7} We begin our analysis by reviewing the historical background of Section 38-3-1(D)(1). See Munroe v. Wall, 66 N.M. 15, 18, 340 P.2d 1069, 1070 (1959)

("One guide in the construction of a statute that has been found to be most useful to the courts is the consideration of the history and prior condition of a particular law."). The first statute regulating venue in civil actions became effective on September 22, 1846, as part of the Kearny Code of Laws. Geck v. Shepherd, 1 N.M. 346 (1859). That statute, 1846 N.M. Laws, Practice at Law in Civil Suits, § 4 (Kearny Code), provided as follows:

Suits instituted by citation shall be brought in the county in which the defendant resides, or in the county in which the plaintiff resides, and the defendant may be found; in cases where the defendant is [not]² a resident of this territory such suit may be commenced in any county.

{8} In 1851, the Territorial Legislature enacted a new venue statute. 1865 Rev. Stat and Laws, art. XII, ch. XXVII, § 7 (1851) (the 1851 Act). The 1851 Act provided as follows:

Every person shall be sued in the county in which he lives, except in the following cases, that is to say:

1st. A married woman when liable to be sued, shall be sued in the county in which her husband resides.

2d. When a defendant has inherited an estate concerning which any one may wish to institute a suit, he shall be sued in the county in which the estate is situated.

3d. When a defendant has contracted to perform an obligation in a particular county, he shall be sued in the county in which he has engaged to perform the contract.

4th. When the defendant has committed some crime for which a civil action for damages may be maintained, in such case he may be sued in the county in which the crime was committed, or wherever he may be found.

5th. In case the defendant may be a transient person, he may be sued in whatever county he may be found.

6th. When suit is brought for the recovery of moveable property, it shall be brought in whatever county the property may be found.

7th. In cases against guardians, curators, executors and administrators, the parties may be sued in the county in which any such persons were appointed to any of said trusts, in the county in which the property in controversy may be found, or in the county in which the defendant may live; it being optionary with the plaintiff.

8th. In cases of delinquencies or frauds in public officers, they may be sued in the county in which the fraud or delinquency occurred, or in which the defendant may be found.

9th. When lands are the object of the suit, it shall be brought in the county in which the lands are situated.

10th. When two or more persons [are] liable to be made defendants in the same suit, if it be in the nature of a transitory action, the suit may be brought in the county in which either of the proposed defendants may reside.

{9} In 1853, the Legislature repealed the 1851 Act, apparently because the ten exceptions had proved "oppressive" to defendants and of "doubtful expediency." Geck, 1 N.M. at 353. In place of the 1851 Act, the Legislature enacted the following venue statute:

All suits, instituted in any of the courts of this Territory, shall be brought in the county in which the defendant resides, or in the county in which the plaintiff resides, and the defendant may be found; and in case the defendant is not a resident of this Territory, such suit may be brought in any county.

1853 N.M. Laws, ch. XXIX, § 4 (the 1853 Act).

{10} In 1876, the Legislature enacted a new venue statute, 1875-76 N.M. Laws, ch. II. (1876) (the 1876 Act). The 1876 Act provided as follows:

Section 1. That all civil actions which may hereafter be commenced in the district courts, shall be brought and shall be commenced in counties as follows, and not otherwise:

First, All

...