Corbello v. Iowa Production Company
| Decision Date | 06 June 2001 |
| Docket Number | No. 00-1403.,00-1403. |
| Citation | 787 So.2d 596 |
| Parties | William G. CORBELLO, et al. v. IOWA PRODUCTION COMPANY, et al. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
James E. Blazek, Adams and Reese, New Orleans, LA, Counsel for Shell Oil Company, Shell Western E & P, Inc.
Richard E. Gerard, Jr., Scofield, Gerard, Veron, Singletary & Pohorelsky, Lake Charles, LA, Counsel for Lawrence Heyd, Maisie Johnson Heyd, William G. Corbello, The Rosa Heyd Corbello Family Trust, Mary Heyd Fontenot, Bernice Heyd Hymes, Alverdy Heyd Veron.
Patrick Wise Gray, Liskow & Lewis, Lafayette, LA, Counsel for Shell Western E & P, Inc., Shell Oil Company.
John Michael Veron, Scofield, Gerard, Veron, Singletary & Pohorelsky, Lake Charles, LA, Counsel for The Rosa Heyd Corbello Family Trust, Maisie Johnson Heyd, Alverdy Heyd Veron, Lawrence Heyd, Mary Heyd Fontenot, Bernice Heyd Hymes, William G. Corbello.
Thomas Martin McNamara, Liskow & Lewis, Lafayette, LA, Counsel for Shell Oil Company, Shell Western E & P, Inc.
Matthew Joseph Randazzo III, Gordon, Arata, McCollam, Duplantis & Eagan, New Orleans, LA, Counsel for Rosewood Resources, Inc.
Court composed of OSWALD A. DECUIR, MARC T. AMY, and GLENN B. GREMILLION, Judges.
Shell Oil Company appeals the dismissal of its third party demand against Rosewood Resources, Inc. Rosewood seeks to have the appeal deferred or consolidated.
The main demand in this case was filed on May 14, 1992, and involves claims for damages relating to decades of oil and gas production on the plaintiffs' property. Shell was a defendant on the main demand. Rosewood, as a successor to Shell's mineral lease on plaintiffs' land, was a defendant on Shell's third party demand. Rosewood was also made a defendant on the main demand, but settled with the plaintiffs on September 1, 1999. As a part of that settlement, plaintiffs agreed to defend and indemnify Rosewood on the claims presented by Shell.
When this suit originated, Shell was represented by the law firm of Adams & Reese. However, on September 29, 1999, Liskow & Lewis enrolled as counsel for Shell and assumed primary responsibility for Shell's representation, though Adams & Reese did not withdraw. On the Friday before the commencement of a three-week trial on Monday, and nearly eight months after Liskow & Lewis enrolled as counsel for Shell, counsel for Rosewood wrote the district court alleging that Liskow & Lewis had a conflict of interest with Rosewood. The district court acknowledged receipt of a letter in open court, but the letter does not appear in the record.
On the morning of trial, without a motion to disqualify, or prior notice to Shell, the district court heard arguments from counsel on the alleged conflict. The substance of Rosewood's allegation was that Liskow & Lewis was representing Kingfisher Resources, Inc., a corporate affiliate of Rosewood in a totally unrelated matter in federal court. The district court took no documentary evidence regarding the existence of a conflict. The alleged conflict is only described in the argument presented by counsel. After hearing argument, the district court presented Shell with an ultimatum, either allow Adams & Reese to take over representation (without a continuance), agree to a stipulation proposed by Rosewood that changed (arguably to the benefit of the plaintiff rather than Rosewood) during the course of the hearing, or dismiss the third party demand with prejudice. When Shell declined to take any of the options, the district court dismissed the third party demand against Rosewood with prejudice and proceeded to trial on the main demand. Shell lodged this appeal. Plaintiffs filed a motion with this court to defer and consolidate this appeal with the anticipated appeal from the main demand that will follow shortly.
The plaintiffs filed a motion to defer this appeal and consolidate it with the anticipated appeal from the judgment in the underlying case. They contend that this matter should be considered in the context of the underlying appeal. We find no merit to this contention. The issues raised here regarding attorney conflict of interest are easily separable from the main demand and our resolution of them will have no impact on the judgment in the underlying matter. Accordingly, the plaintiffs' motion to defer and consolidate is denied.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Corbello v. Iowa Production
...of a conflict of interest. However, the court of appeal reversed the trial court's dismissal of Rosewood. Corbello v. Iowa Prod. Co., 00-1403 (La.App. 3 Cir. 6/6/01), 787 So.2d 596, writ denied, 01-2334 (La.11/16/01), 802 So.2d In May 2000, the case was tried before a jury over a two and on......
-
Corbello v. Iowa Production
...the dismissal. This court reversed the trial court's dismissal of Rosewood. Corbello v. Iowa Prod. Co., 00-1403 (La.App. 3 Cir. 6/6/01); 787 So.2d 596, writ denied, 01-2334 (11/16/01); 802 So.2d In May 2000, Plaintiffs tried their claims to a jury. At the conclusion of the two and one-half ......
-
Walker v. STATE, DOTD
...for an alleged conflict of interest is disqualification of the attorney or firm with the conflict. Corbello v. Iowa Production Co., XXXX-XXXX (La.App. 3 Cir. 6/6/01), 787 So.2d 596. In determining whether a conflict exists, courts often look to the Rules of Professional Conduct. See In re: ......
-
United States v. Ryan
...delayed in asserting that the opposing party's counsel had conflict of interest. See, e.g., Corbello v. Iowa Prod. Co. , 2000-1403 (La. App. 3 Cir. 6/6/01), 787 So. 2d 596, 599. ("In this case, [third party defendant] Rosewood knew of Liskow & Lewis’ representation [of the third party plain......