Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

Allison v. Citgo Petroleum Corp.

Louisiana Court of Appeal, Third Circuit · Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedureSummary JudgmentInterlocutory ReviewStatutory Employer Immunitysummary judgmentstatutory employer immunityinterlocutory judgmentappeal

Facts

After heavy rainfall on June 19, 2006, CITGO released toxic slop oil, wastewater, and toxic fumes, and later hired contractors to clean the affected waterways. Certain plaintiffs were workers for contractors Miller Environmental Services, Gulf Services Mechanical, and Angelle Concrete during the cleanup. More than ten years later, CITGO moved for summary judgment claiming statutory employer immunity based on partial contracts containing statutory-employer language and supporting affidavits. The trial court found the partial contracts inadmissible and denied summary judgment as to several plaintiffs.

Issue

Did the trial court err in denying CITGO's motion for summary judgment on the ground that CITGO was the plaintiffs' statutory employer and therefore immune from tort suit? Also, were plaintiffs' objections to the incomplete contract documents timely under Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 966(D)(2)?

Rule

On summary judgment, appellate courts review de novo whether there is a genuine issue of material fact and whether the mover is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The mover bears the burden on the motion, and the court may consider only documents filed in support of or opposition to the motion; objections to documents must be raised in a timely filed opposition or reply memorandum. A party seeking summary judgment based on contractual statutory-employer status must submit competent summary judgment evidence sufficient to establish that status; incomplete or inadmissible contract materials and affidavits that do not attest to the relevant contractual provisions do not carry that burden.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In a tort suit in Baton Rouge, Red Bluff Refining moved for summary judgment claiming statutory-employer immunity. It attached selected pages of a service agreement with Bayou Field Services that referenced multiple missing exhibits; in a timely opposition memorandum, the plaintiffs argued the agreement was incomplete and specifically identified the omitted exhibits.

How should the court treat the plaintiffs' objection to the contract materials?

Explanation. Under the majority opinion, objections to summary-judgment documents must be raised in a timely filed opposition or reply memorandum. A specific objection in a timely opposition that the contract is incomplete satisfies that requirement. The opponent need not wait for the hearing, file a separate motion to strike, or supply the missing materials to preserve the objection. (Derived from Allison v. Citgo Petroleum Corp. (n.d.).)