PLAUCHE MASELLI

E

l

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

Andrew L. Plauche, Jr.
Joseph Maselli, Jr.
G. Bruce Parkerson 1•2
Mark E. Young 1
Kenan S. Rand, Jr.

Lacey Sarver Goss
Jessica S. Savoie

3 FLORIDA

Conrad C. Rolling

4 MISSISSIPPI

James K. Ordeneaux
George C. Drennan
R. Heath Savant 4

S. Katelyn Harrell 4
M. Robert C. Riess, Jr.
Mark T. Assad

Lauren Baylor Dietzen 3

Al5O ADMITTED IN

1 TEXAS
2 NORTH CAROLINA

Scott H. Mason
Attie B. Carville

File#311.00107

July 24, 2017

Via Federal Express
Hon Mike Spence
Caddo Parish Clerk of Court
501 Texas Street, Room 103
Shreveport, LA 71101

Re:

Michelle Williams and Nicole Williams Gross v.
CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp., et al
First JDC No. 600967, Div. "C"

Dear Mr. Spence:
I enclose the original and one copy of a Partial Peremptory Exception of No Cause of
Action, Partial Peremptory Exception of No Right of Action, and Answer, Memorandum in
Support of Partial Peremptory Exception of No Cause of Action, along with a Request for
Written Notice. Please file the original into the Court's record and return a date-stamped copy to
me in the enclosed, self-addressed, pre-stamped envelope.
I enclose our check to cover the costs of filing.
Thanking you for your usual courtesies, I remain,
Sincer~ly yours,
(.

//f,::\_1_y1;Jr1/v.
• lK ,\.,,,../., '\j

,

/\ Jessica S. Savoie
)

JSS/las
Enclosure
cc:
J. Todd Bencon (via fax #318-227-3820, toddbenson@arklatexlaw.com, and U.S. Mail)
Jennifer McKay (via fax#318-429-6771, imckay@colvinfirm.com and U.S. Mail)
702671 _ LWPD

One Shell Square, 701 Poydras St., Suite 3800, New Orleans, LA 70139

Phone: 504.582.1142 Fax: 504.582.1172

Acadian Centre, 2431 S. Acadian Thruway, Suite 230, Baton Rouge LA 70808 Phone: 225.240.7688 Fax: 225.406.7797
www.pmp!lp.com

 FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT FOR THE PARISH OF CADDO
STATE OF LOUISIANA
NO.

DIVISION "C"

600967

MICHELLE WILLIAMS AND NICOLE WILLIAMS GROSS
VERSUS
CENTERPOINT ENERGY RESOURCES CORP. AND
THE CITY OF SHREVEPORT, LOUISIANA
FILED: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
DEPUTY CLERK
PARTIAL PEREMPTORY EXCEPTION OF NO CAUSE OF ACTION, PARTIAL
PEREMPTORY EXCEPTION OF NO RIGHT OF ACTION, AND ANSWER
NOW INTO COURT, through undersigned counsel, comes Defendant CenterPoint
Energy Resources Corp. ("CenterPoint"), who, in response to Plaintiffs' Petition and Jury
Demand and First Supplemental and Amended Petition (hereinafter, "the Petition, as amended"),
respectfully represents as follows:

PARTIAL PEREMPTORY EXCEPTION OF NO CAUSE OF ACTION
CenterPoint hereby asserts the Peremptory Exception of No Cause of Action pursuant to
Article 927 (5) of the Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure as to the allegations contained in
Paragraphs 55 through 69 of the Petition, as amended, which will be more fully briefed in a
separate pleading requesting a pretrial determination of this Exception.

PARTIAL PEREMPTORY EXCEPTION OF NO RIGHT OF ACTION
CenterPoint hereby asserts the Peremptory Exception of No Right of Action pursuant to
Article 927(6) of the Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure as to the allegations contained in
Paragraphs 115 through 118 of the Petition, as amended, which will be more fully briefed in a
separate pleading requesting a pretrial determination of this Exception.

ANSWER
AND NOW, reserving its rights to pre-trial determinations of its Partial Peremptory
Exception of No Cause of Action and Partial Peremptory Exception ofNo Right of Action, and

- 1697015

 in response to the specific allegations of the Petition, as amended, CenterPoint respectfully
represents as follows:
I.
The allegations contained in Paragraphs 1, 12, 18, 31, 32, 36, 37, 39, 40, 41, 50, 60, 67,
68, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 77, 85, 86, 87, and 88 of the Petition, as amended, are denied as stated.
II.
The allegations contained in Paragraphs 2, 3, 4(B), 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21,
22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,33,34,38,42,43,52,54,82,83,90,91,92,93,94,95,96,97,98,
99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, and 112 of the Petition, as
amended, are denied for lack of sufficient information upon which to justify a belief.
III.
The allegations contained in Paragraph 4(A) of the Petition, as amended, are denied as
stated except to admit domicile.
IV.
The allegations contained in Paragraphs 5, 6, 7, 8, 30, 44, 47, and 49 of the Petition, as
amended, are admitted.
V.
The allegations contained in Paragraph 9 of the Petition, as amended, call for a legal
conclusion and do not require a response of CenterPoint, but CenterPoint states that it complied
with all applicable legal duties.
VI.
The allegations contained in Paragraphs 35, 45, 46, 53, 75, 78, 79, 81, 84, and 117 of the
Petition, as amended, are denied.
VII.
The allegations contained in Paragraph 48 of the Petition, as amended, are admitted to the
extent that there was a leak in a one inch poly line on May 6, 2016, but CenterPoint denies that
the leak in the one inch poly line on May 6, 2016 was the source of the gas leak that existed at
the time of the subject incident more than two months later.

-2697015

 VIII.
The allegations contained in Paragraph 51 of the Petition, as amended, are denied as
stated except to admit that the referenced photograph was taken on May 26, 2016.
IX.
The allegations contained in Paragraphs 55, 56, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, and 69 of the
Petition, as amended, are denied, and CenterPoint moves to strike pursuant to article 964 of the
Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure.
X.
The allegations contained in Paragraphs 57 and 58 of the Petition, as amended, contain a
legal conclusion that do not require a response of CenterPoint, but CenterPoint states that it
complied with the relevant legal requirements, and moves to strike these paragraphs pursuant to
article 964 of the Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure.
XL

The allegations contained in Paragraph 59 of the Petition, as amended, are denied as
stated and CenterPoint moves to strike pursuant to article 964 of the Louisiana Code of Civil
Procedure.
XII.
The allegations contained in Paragraph 80 of the Petition, as amended, contain a legal
conclusion that does not require a response from CenterPoint, but CenterPoint states that it
complied with the relevant legal requirements.
XIII.
The allegations contained in Paragraph 89 of the Petition, as amended, apply to another
defendant and do not require a response of CenterPoint, but in an abundance of caution, are
denied for lack of sufficient information upon which to justify a belief.
XIV.

CenterPoint joins in Plaintiffs' demand for a jury trial made in Paragraph 113 of the
Petition, as amended.

-3697015

 xv.
The allegations contained in Paragraph 114 of the Petition, as amended, do not require an
answer of CenterPoint.
XVI.
The allegations contained in Paragraph 115 of the Petition, as amended, contain legal
conclusions that do not require an answer of CenterPoint, but are denied as stated, in that Texas
Civil Practice & Remedies Code §41.003 provides in pertinent part: "(a) ... [E]xemplary damages
may be awarded only if the claimant proves by clear and convincing evidence that the harm with
respect to which the claimant seeks recovery of exemplary damages results from: (1) fraud; (2)
malice; or (3) gross negligence."
XVII.
The allegations contained in Paragraph 116 of the Petition, as amended, contain legal
conclusions that do not require an answer of CenterPoint, but are admitted only to the extent that
CenterPoint's designated principal place of business is in Texas and are otherwise denied as
stated.
XVIII.
The allegations contained in Paragraph 118 of the Petition, as amended, contain legal
conclusions that do not require an answer of CenterPoint and are otherwise denied; CenterPoint
specifically denies the applicability of Texas punitive damages law to the present case.
XlX.
To the extent that discovery reveals evidence of the fault and/or negligence of Plaintiff(s),
Defendant specifically and affirmatively pleads that Plaintiffs' damages were caused by the fault
and/or negligence of Plaintiff(s), which was the substantial cause-in-fact of Plaintiffs' damages
and should operate to completely bar recovery herein or, alternatively, reduce recovery on a
comparative fault basis.

xx.
Defendant specifically and affirmatively pleads that Plaintiffs' damages were caused by
the fault and/or negligence of third parties for whom it was not responsible, including but not
limited to the City of Shreveport, which were the substantial causes-in-fact of Plaintiffs'
-4697015

 damages and should operate to completely bar recovery herein, or, alternatively, reduce recovery
on a comparative fault basis.

XXL
Defendant asserts that in the event there be a finding of damages for which Defendant is
responsible, which is denied, and in the event that this Court finds that Texas law applies, which
is also denied, then there should be applied the statutory limitation on the recovery of medical or
health care expenses pursuant to TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN §41.0105.

XXII.
Exemplary damages awarded against the Defendant, if any, are not allowed and Texas
law does not apply but in the alternative may not exceed the amount contained in and limited by
Chapter 41 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, and Defendant would respectfully
request this Honorable Court to compute Plaintiffs' award, if any, in accordance with the
language of Chapter 41 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code.

XXIII.
The claim for exemplary punitive damages is unconstitutional because the Due Process
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the imposition of grossly excessive or arbitrary
punishments on a tortfeasor.

The exemplary damages claim is unconstitutional because elementary notions of fairness
enshrined in our Constitutional jurisprudence dictates that a person receive fair notice not only of
the conduct that will subject him to punishment, but also the severity of the penalty that a state
may impose.

XXV
The exemplary damages claim is unconstitutional to the extent an award is grossly
excessive; it furthers no legitimate purpose and constitutes an arbitrary deprivation of property.
XXVI
Plaintiffs' claims for exemplary damages are barred by the "Double Jeopardy Clause" of
the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution as applied to the states through the
Fourteenth Amendment.
-5697015

 XXVII
An award of exemplary damages to Plaintiffs would violate the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and
Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution of the United States on grounds which include the
following:
(a)

It is a violation of Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the Fourteenth
Amendment of the United States Constitution to impose punitive damages, which
are penal in nature, against a civil defendant upon a plaintiff satisfying a burden
of proof which is less than "beyond a reasonable doubt" burden of proof required
in criminal cases.

(b)

The proceedings to which punitive damages are awarded permit the imposition of
punitive damages in excess of the maximum criminal fine for the same or similar
conduct, which thereby infringes the Due Process clause of the Fifth and
Fourteenth Amendment and the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment of the United States Constitution.

(c)

The procedure pursuant to which punitive damages are awarded result in the
imposition of different penalties for the same or similar acts, and thus violates the
Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment of the
United States Constitution.

(d)

An award of punitive damages to plaintiffs would violate the United States
Constitution on the grounds set forth by the United States Supreme Court in State
Farm v. Campbell.

WHEREFORE, Defendant CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp. prays that this, its Partial
Peremptory Exception of No Cause of Action, Partial Peremptory Exception of No right of
Action and Answer to the Petition and Jury Request and First Supplemental and Amended
Petition, be deemed good and sufficient, and that pre-trial determinations occur of its Partial
Peremptory Exception of No Cause of Action, Partial Peremptory Exception of No Right of
Action, and Motion to Strike and after due proceedings had, there be judgment in its favor,
dismissing Plaintiffs' Petition and Jury Request and First Supplemental and Amended Petition, at
Plaintiffs' costs, or, alternatively, reducing recovery on a comparative fault basis.

-6697015

 Respectfully submitted;
PLAUCHE MASELLI PARKERSON L.L.P.
Ci\

BY:

I

,,

\ . \

.

c· 1

\ \\~Li'),; ? f

1i,'111lCll) 'xi,, ??~lti., ' c7"~ /
G:Ji3RUCE PARKERSON (#1118)
JAMES K. ORDENEAUX (#28179)
JESSICA S. SAVOIE (#33378)
701 Poydras Street, Suite 3800
New Orleans, Louisiana 70139
Telephone: (504) 582-1142
Telefax: (504) 582-1172
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT,
CENTERPOINT ENERGY RESOURCES
CORP.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I do hereby certify that I have on this __ day of

;fl(~

, 2017, served a

copy of the foregoing pleading on counsel for all parties to b{Jroceeding by facsimile or email
and/or mailing the same by United States Mail, properly addressed and first class postage
prepaid.

Jes~ca

-7697015

s: Savoie

 FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT FOR THE PARISH OF CADDO
STATE OF LOUISIANA
NO.

DIVISION "C"

600967

MICHELLE WILLIAMS AND NICOLE WILLIAMS GROSS
VERSUS
CENTERPOINT ENERGY RESOURCES CORP. AND
THE CITY OF SHREVEPORT, LOUISIANA
FILED: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
DEPUTY CLERK
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PARTIAL PEREMPTORY EXCEPTION OF
NO CAUSE OF ACTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE

MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT:
Plaintiffs' Petition contains allegations that involve facts unrelated to the elements of the
asserted wrongful death, survival and bystander claims. No cause of action lies with respect to
post-incident reporting by CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp. ("CenterPoint") and the legal
opinions of CenterPoint regarding reporting requirements. The allegations of the Petition
regarding the timing and content of CenterPoint' s reporting of the natural gas leak and fire after
Dr. Williams sustained injuries (Paragraphs 55 through 69 of the Petition) are completely
irrelevant to the damages claimed, do not set forth a cause of action, and serve only to prejudice
the Court and jury against CenterPoint. Louisiana law requires that this Partial Peremptory
Exception be sustained, and the referenced portions of the Petition stricken from the record in the
interests of judicial economy, cleaning up the pleadings, properly defining the scope of
discovery, and preventing undue prejudice to CenterPoint.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
I.

The Causes of Action Asserted in the Petition

The subject incident arises from a natural gas fire that occurred on July 31, 2016, behind
the residence of the deceased Dr. Richard Williams and Plaintiff Michelle Williams. Dr.
Williams sustained bodily injuries in the fire and eventually died from complications of these

- 1697093

 mJ1mes. (Petition, ,r1.) Plaintiffs make factual allegations that support their causes of action in
paragraphs other than Paragraphs 55-69 of the Petition.
II.

The Allegations that Do Not Support a Cause of Action
Paragraphs 55 through 69, which are accepted as true only for the limited purpose of this

Partial Peremptory Exception and otherwise denied, contain allegations regarding
communications between CenterPoint and the Louisiana State Police after the incident occurred.
Plaintiffs allege that the subject incident occurred at approximately 4: 10 p.m. on July 31, 2016.
CenterPoint was allegedly informed, through its dispatcher, of the report of a natural gas leak at
4: 18 p.m. and was informed of a fire at 4:27 p.m. The existence of a gas leak was confirmed
shortly after CenterPoint technicians arrived at the Williams residence to investigate at 4 :53 p.m.
After the fire was extinguished at 5:02 p.m., and after CenterPoint was able to conduct its
investigation, CenterPoint provided notification of the incident to the Louisiana State Police at
5:45 p.m. (Petition, if59.) CenterPoint provided notification of the incident to the Louisiana
Department of Natural Resources on July 31, 2016. (Petition, if60.)
The Petition starts the smear campaign by alleging that CenterPoint made "numerous
false statements" about the incident to the Louisiana State Police on July 31, 2016, after
reporting the incident. (Petition, if69.) 1 Plaintiffs contend that the timing ofCenterPoint's
reporting violated the Louisiana statutory and regulatory reporting requirements of Louisiana
Revised Statutes §32:1510 (regarding notification of Louisiana State Police) and Louisiana
Regulatory Code, Title 43, Part XIII, § 305 (regarding notification of Louisiana Department of
Natural Resources). Plaintiffs did not allege how such alleged violations or false statements
either (a) presented a cause of action, or (b) caused damages to Plaintiffs.
Paragraphs 55 through 69 of the Petition contain further allegations that CenterPoint did
not agree with the Louisiana State Police's legal interpretation of Louisiana Revised Statutes
§32:1510 regarding required notification of Louisiana State Police for incidents occurring
"during the transportation, loading, unloading, or related storage in any place of a hazardous
material subject to this Chapter." The allegations provide a second-hand account of a meeting

1

Notably, just as in most exigent circumstances, the immediate information is not always the most accurate, as
CenterPoint later that same month corrected the misinformation and/or mistakes by letter dated August 22, 2016.

-2697093

 that occurred between representatives of CenterPoint and Louisiana State Police in which
reporting requirements were discussed. (Petition, iJ65-68.) Similar to the allegations regarding
reporting discussed above, the Petition provides no allegation as to (a) why or how this legal
position by CenterPoint created a cause of action, or (b) caused damages to Plaintiffs.
LAW AND ARGUMENT

I.

Partial Peremptory Exception of No Cause of Action
None of the factual allegations contained in Paragraphs 55 through 69 of the Petition state

a cause of action. Even if CenterPoint violated the statutes cited by Plaintiffs or made false
statements, which is denied, Plaintiffs have no cause of action for such violations or false
statements. It is clear from the facts alleged on the face of the Petition that the alleged reporting
occurred after the fire and after Dr. Williams sustained injuries and therefore did not cause
Plaintiffs' alleged damages. Moreover, it is clear from the text of the cited statutes and
regulations that the laws allegedly imposing reporting requirements upon CenterPoint do not
create a civil cause of action or support a claim for negligence. Similarly, CenterPoint's legal
interpretation of reporting requirements is completely irrelevant to how the incident occurred and
the damages alleged by Plaintiffs. Louisiana law simply does not provide a legal remedy to
Plaintiffs based on the factual allegations contained in Paragraphs 55 through 69 of the Petition.
A. Legal Standard for Partial Exception of No Cause of Action
A peremptory exception of no cause of action functions to determine whether the law
extends a remedy to anyone based on the factual allegations of the petition. The peremptory
exception of no cause of action tests the legal sufficiency of the petition by determining whether
the plaintiff is afforded a remedy in law based on the facts alleged. La. C.C.P. art. 927(5);

Thornton v. Carthon, 47,948, p. 10-11 (La. App. 2 Cir. 5/15/13); 114 So. 3d 554,561, writs
denied, 2013-1785 (La. 11/1/13); citing Kinchen v. Livingston Parish Council, 07-04 78 (La.
10/16/07); 967 So. 2d 1137; Finkv. Bryant, 01-0987 (La. 11/28/01); 801 So. 2d 346.
Louisiana courts recognize the legal validity of a partial exception of no cause of action
seeking the dismissal of one discrete cause of action contained in a Petition. The term "cause of
action," as used in the context of the exception, refers to "the operative facts which give rise to
the plaintiffs right to judicially assert the action against the defendant." Everything on Wheels

-3697093

 Subaru v. Subaru South, Inc., et al., 616 So. 2d 1234, 1238-(La. 1993). A partial exception ofno
cause of action may be sustained when a Petition states multiple causes of action based on the
operative facts of separate and distinct transactions or occurrences. Everything on Wheels
Subaru, supra, 616 So. 2d at 1239.
In the present case, the Petition distinguishes Paragraphs 55 through 69 as a separate set
of operative facts but for which no separate cause of action is asserted, thus subjecting them to
dismissal pursuant to this Peremptory Exception. Plaintiffs set apart these paragraphs from the
other factual allegations of the Petition by the heading: "CENTERPOINT'S FAILURE TO
ADHERE TO LAW AND REGULATIONS AND IMPEDING OF THE INVESTIGATION
INTO THIS ACCIDENT." The factual allegations contained in Paragraphs 55 through 69 of the
Petition fall within the following categories: (1) the alleged failure of CenterPoint to timely
report the subject incident to the Louisiana State Police pursuant to Louisiana Revised Statutes §
32:1510(A) (i!i/55, 56, 57, 59, 61, ), (2) the alleged failure of CenterPoint to timely report the
subject incident to the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources pursuant to Louisiana
Regulatory Code, Title 43, Part XIII, § 305 (iJiJ55, 56, 58, 60, 62), (3) the alleged refusal or
failure of CenterPoint to report gas leaks prior to the subject incident (ili/63-64), (4) the events of
a meeting between representatives of CenterPoint and the Louisiana State Police regarding the
proper legal interpretation of the referenced notice statutes and regulations (i!i/65-68), and (5)
allegedly "false statements" by CenterPoint representatives to the Louisiana State Police made in
the course of discussing the subject incident after the incident occurred (i!i/69).
None of the allegations of Paragraphs 55 through 69 caused any damages. The
allegations do not involve the damages allegedly sustained by Dr. Richard Williams or the
damages allegedly sustained by Plaintiffs. Instead, the allegations contained in Paragraphs 55
through 69 of the Petition deal with immaterial facts regarding CenterPoint's post-incident
notification of Louisiana state authorities.

-4697093

 B. The Petition Fails to State Causation of Damages by Allegedly Delayed
Reporting with "False Statements."
Plaintiffs' Petition fails to allege any connection between CenterPoint' s allegedly late
reporting and a cause of any damages to Plaintiffs, nor can any such damages be inferred based
on the facts alleged. Louisiana's duty/risk negligence scheme requires a plaintiff to prove a
causal connection between the defendant's alleged breach oflegal duty and actual damages
sustained by plaintiff. Lemann v. Essen Lane Daiquiris, Inc., 2005-1095, p. 7 (La. 3/10/06); 923
So. 2d 627, 633. Here, Plaintiffs allege that CenterPoint violated its duties as set forth in
Louisiana Revised Statutes § 32: 151 0(A) and Louisiana Regulatory Code, Title 43, Part XIII, §
305, but, even if true, the timing and content of CenterPoint's reporting did not cause damages to
Plaintiffs.
The chronology of events set forth in the Petition demonstrates that CenterPoint's alleged
violation of these statutes and alleged false statements were not the legal cause of damages.
CenterPoint's reporting occurred after Dr. Williams' injuries had occurred, after Mrs. Williams
had called 911, and after fire and rescue personnel arrived on the scene, rendered first aid to Dr.
Williams, and transported him to the hospital via ambulance. (Petition, ~~17-25, 28, 33, 42.) As
a matter of common sense, the timing and content of CenterPoint' s reporting simply did not
cause any damages claimed by Plaintiffs.
Even if CenterPoint violated these statutes, which is denied, such violation alone does
not provide a cause of action because Louisiana does not recognize the negligence per se
doctrine. Ducote v. Boleware, 2015-0764, p. 8 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2/17/16); --- So. 3d----, 2016
WL 659022, citing Burns v. CLK Investments, 2010-0277, p. 8 (La. App. 4 Cir. 9/1/10); 45 So.
2d 1152, 1158. A statutory violation does not "automatically, in and of itself, impose civil
liability. Civil responsibility is imposed only if the act in violation of the statute is the legal
cause of damage to another." Faucheaux v. Terrebonne Consolidated Government, 615 So. 2d
289, 292-293 (La. 1993) (emphases added).

-5697093

 C. The Statutes and Regulations Do Not Confer a Civil Cause of Action for
Violations.
The statutes and regulations allegedly violated by CenterPoint do not provide a private
right of action by which natural gas companies may be held liable in civil personal injury
lawsuits. A brief review of Louisiana Revised Statutes § 32:1501 et seq. reveals that while the
statute authorizes criminal penalties(§ 32:1514) and civil administrative penalties paid into the
state treasury(§ 32:1512-1513), the statute does not contemplate civil tort liability. Similarly,
Louisiana Regulatory Code, Title 43, Part XIII,§ 301 et seq., does not impose penalties or
authorize private civil lawsuits.

D. The Petition Fails to State a Cause of Action With Respect to CenterPoint's
Legal Interpretation of Reporting Requirements.
Plaintiffs' allegations regarding CenterPoint' s interpretation of Louisiana Revised
Statutes §32: 1510 are completely irrelevant and do not create a cause of action. Paragraphs 63
through 67 contain factual allegations regarding the communications that occurred between
representatives of the Louisiana State Police and representatives of CenterPoint at a meeting held
July 29, 2016. The Petition alleges, inter alia, that CenterPoint representatives advised that they
did not think CenterPoint was required to report natural gas leaks to the Louisiana State Police
pursuant to Section 32:1510 because the statute applies to vehicular transportation, not natural
gas distribution. Regardless of what was discussed at this meeting, the Petition also alleges that
CenterPoint reported the subject incident to the Louisiana State Police one hour and 35 minutes
after it occurred (Petition, i!59). In light ofCenterPoint's actual adruitted reporting of the
incident to the Louisiana State Police, CenterPoint' s position regarding reporting requirements is
completely irrelevant and immaterial to the damages claimed by Plaintiffs and does not state a
cause of action.

II.

Motion to Strike
The allegations made in Paragraphs 55 through 69 of the Petition are so irrelevant and

prejudicial that they should be stricken from the Petition. Because they do not state a cause of
action under which Plaintiffs can recover, the sole purpose of their inclusion is to prejudice
CenterPoint in the eyes of the Court and jury.

-6697093

 Article 964 of the Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure provides: "The court on motion of
a party or on its own motion may at any time and after a hearing order stricken from any
pleading any insufficient demand or defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or
scandalous matter." Louisiana courts have held that a motion to strike is only proper if the
allegations challenged are so unrelated to the plaintiffs claims as to be unworthy of
consideration and that the presence of the allegations would be prejudicial to the party moving to
strike. Hazelwood Farm, Inc. v. Liberty Oil and Gas Corp., 2001-0345 (La. App. 3 Cir.
6/20/01); writ denied, 2001-2115 (La. 7/26/01); 794 So. 2d 834; O'Connor v. Nelson, 2010-250
(La. App. 5 Cir. 1/11/11); 60 So. 3d 27.
Here, the allegations at issue are entirely unrelated to Plaintiffs' claims for damages
based on the subject incident. The timing ofCenterPoint's post-incident notification of
Louisiana state authorities is completely irrelevant to the damages claimed by Plaintiffs, as is the
content of the post-incident written reports to the Louisiana State Police (which allegedly
contained "false statements") and the legal contentions of CenterPoint regarding the
interpretation of the relevant Louisiana law. Paragraphs 55 through 69 should be stricken as
irrelevant and immaterial in order to clean up the pleadings and simplify the issues presented to
the Court.

In the absence of any relevance to causation of damages, the only apparent reason for
Plaintiffs' inclusion of Paragraphs 55 through 69 of the Petition is a transparent attempt to
prejudice the Court against CenterPoint. Such scurrilous, impertinent, and pointless allegations
exemplify the purpose of a motion to strike. Plaintiffs' allegations are especially prejudicial
because the (inappropriate) legal conclusions contained in these Paragraphs are disputed. For
example, CenterPoint contends that it provided timely notification to the Louisiana State Police
and Louisiana Department of Natural Resources after the subject incident because CenterPoint
was required to confirm the existence of a gas leak and resulting fire and injuries before making
the reports. To interpret the subject statute and regulation to require natural gas utilities to report
every single phone call received reporting a possible gas leak without verifying whether a gas
leak has actually occurred would result in an absurdly large number of reports to the relevant
Louisiana authorities.
-7697093

 Pursuant to article 863 of the Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure, CenterPoint requested
plaintiffs to amend the Petition and delete paragraphs 55 through 69 for the reasons stated herein.
To date, plaintiffs have refused to voluntarily amend the petition to properly delete these
allegations.

CONCLUSION
For all of the reasons set forth above, CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp. respectfully
requests that the Court sustain the Partial Peremptory Exception of No Cause of Action and grant
the Motion to Strike, striking Paragraphs 55 through 69 of Plaintiffs' Petition.
Respectfully submitted,
PLAUCHE MASELLI PARKERSON LLP

BY:
G.
PARKERSON (#1118)
JAMES K. ORDENEAUX (#28179)
JESSICA S. SAVOIE (#33378)
701 Poydras Street, Suite 3 800
New Orleans, Louisiana 70139
Telephone: (504) 582-1142
Telefax: (504) 582-1172
bparkerson@pmpllp.com - Email
isavoie@pmpllp.com - Email
COUNSEL FOR CENTERPOINT ENERGY
RESOURCES CORP.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I do hereby certify that I have on this _ _ day of

//1 .( CJv, //
_,/Il

, 2017, served a

...(·.'.J

1

copy of the foregoing pleading on counsel for all parties to th1 s proceeding by facsimile or email
and/or mailing the same by United States Mail, properly addressed and first class postage
prepaid.

-8697093

 FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT FOR THE PARISH OF CADDO
STATE OF LOUISIANA
NO.

600967

DIVISION "C"
MICHELLE WILLIAMS AND NICOLE WILLIAMS GROSS
VERSUS
CENTERPOINT ENERGY RESOURCES CORP. AND
THE CITY OF SHREVEPORT, LOUISIANA

FILED: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
DEPUTY CLERK
TO:

Hon Mike Spence, Caddo Parish Clerk of Court
501 Texas Street, Room 103
Shreveport, LA 71101
REQUEST FOR WRITTEN NOTICE
NOW INTO COURT, through undersigned counsel, comes Defendant CenterPoint

Energy Resources Corp. ("CenterPoint"), and pursuant to Articles 1571 and 1572 of the
Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure, requests that you notify it through undersigned counsel, at
least ten (10) days in advance of any date fixed for trial or hearing in this matter.
Further, pursuant to Articles 1913 and 1914 of the Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure,
defendant requests that you notify it, through undersigned counsel, of any order or judgment to
be entered in this cause.
Respectfully submitted,
PLAUCHE MASELLI PARKERSON LLP
,:/.,

-,ff/)_ J ;'

.. ,_.,. \

'.

,-~

·- !

~!_~~,l\1-\)-;

!

;c::,;tJ: /
f G. BRUCE PARKERSON (#1118)
J JAMES K. ORDENEAUX (#28179)
JESSICA S. SAVOIE (#33378)
701 Poydras Street, Suite 3800
New Orleans, Louisiana 70139
Telephone: (504) 582-1142
Telefax: (504) 582-1172
bparkerson@pmpllp.com - Email
jordeneaux@pmpllp.com - Email
jsavoie@pmpllp.com - Email
COUNSEL FOR CENTERPOlNT
ENERGY RESOURCES CORP.
-·_1-{%P(L(<

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I do hereby certify that I have on this
day of
,1 t,_'l_, ___.
2017, served a,lopy ofthe foregoing pleading
on counsel for all parties to this proceeding by
facsimile or email and/or mailing the same by
United States Mail, properly addressed and
first class postage prep~i_4.

'<>

-1702640

;;'

f'"'i,1 , _\
_b\~--

\~<-.~.:~ ~)C-

_t