Did the Fifth Circuit erroneously fail to determine and apply the substantive law of Louisiana with respect to 'disgorgement of profits' from trespassing pipelines?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Did the Fifth Circuit erroneously fail to determine and apply the substantive law of Louisiana with respect to “disgorgement of profits” from trespassing pipelines? 2. Alternatively, did the Fifth Circuit erroneously ignore and eviscerate the Louisiana law on “continuing trespass” as applied to oil and gas pipelines? 3. Did the Fifth Circuit erroneously fail to apply Rule 54(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure which requires a court to grant the relief which each party is entitled, even if the party has not demanded that relief in its pleadings? 4. Did the Fifth Circuit erroneously fail to treat Petitioners’ Opposition to QEP’s motion for summary judgment as a motion for leave to amend under Rule 15(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure? 5. Did the Fifth Circuit erroneously grant summary judgment against Petitioners and in favor of Defendant QEP under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: a. In holding that the settlement agreement by and between Petitioners and QEP barred consideration of their claims for a “disgorgement of profits” from trespassing pipelines serving the Mary Well; and b. In failing to hold that material issues of fact precluded summary judgment in favor of QEP?