Coca-Cola Comity Rule Bars Louisiana Antitrust Claims in Texas Business Court, But LUTPA Survives Rule 91a
Read the Court's Opinion (PDF)
Judge Sofia Adrogué
In Clean Hydrogen Works v. Denbury Carbon Solutions, Division 11 granted in part a Rule 91a motion to dismiss claims arising from the termination of CO₂ pipeline agreements for a Louisiana blue ammonia project. The court's partial dismissal addressed LA-1's Louisiana Monopolization Act claim and plaintiffs' Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices Act claims, though the source opinion's legal analysis is not fully available.
Court Staff Summary
Read the full opinion The Court dismisses the plaintiffs' Louisiana Monopolization Act claim. The Court is bound by Coca-Cola v. Harmar, 218 S.W. 3d 671 (Tex. 2006), where the Supreme Court held that Texas Courts "will not decide how another state's antitrust laws and policies apply to injuries confined to that state." The Court denies the defendants' motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices Act claim. The Court declines to extend the Coca-Cola rule to that claim and cannot determine at this stage whether the petition describes nothing more than a private contractual dispute, which is insufficient to state a claim under LUTPA.
Background: A Clean Hydrogen Project and Pipeline Partnership
In April 2021, Clean Hydrogen Works, LLC ("CHW") formed LA-1, a limited liability company organized under Louisiana law, to pursue the development of a clean hydrogen and blue ammonia production and export project in Ascension Parish, Louisiana (the "Project"). Denbury Carbon Solutions was initially involved with the Project principally because LA-1 needed infrastructure to transport the CO₂ produced by its proposed blue-ammonia facility. Plaintiffs allege that Denbury owns the only operating Gulf Coast pipeline capable of supplying those services, though defendants dispute this characterization.
Procedural Posture: Partial Motion to Dismiss Under Rule 91a
On May 13, 2026, the Business Court of Texas, Eleventh Division, heard defendants' Partial Motion to Dismiss seeking dismissal of LA-1's Louisiana Monopolization Act ("LMA") claim against Denbury and all plaintiffs' Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices Act ("LUTPA") claims against all defendants. Defendants argued that neither the LMA claim nor the LUTPA claim had any basis in law and were therefore ripe for dismissal under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 91a. Under Rule 91a, a party may move to dismiss a cause of action on the grounds that it has no basis in law or fact. A cause of action has no basis in law if the allegations, taken as true, together with inferences reasonably drawn from them, do not entitle the claimant to the relief sought.
The Court's Ruling: Motion Granted in Part and Denied in Part
After considering the motion, plaintiffs' response, defendants' reply, the evidence presented, the arguments of counsel, and the current status of the law, the court found that the motion should be granted in part and denied in part. The court granted dismissal of LA-1's Louisiana Monopolization Act claim against Denbury. The court denied dismissal of the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices Act claims against all defendants. The complete legal analysis supporting these rulings is not available in the provided portion of the opinion, which concludes during the factual background section.