United States District Court, W.D. Oklahoma
SINGER OIL COMPANY, LLC, an Oklahoma limited liability company, Plaintiff,
NEWFIELD EXPLORATION MID-CONTINENT, INC., a foreign corporation domesticated to do business in Oklahoma, and HALLIBURTON ENERGY SERVICES, INC., a foreign corporation domesticated to do business in Oklahoma, Defendants.
MILES-LaGRANGE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
case is scheduled for trial on the Court's November 2017
the Court is defendant Halliburton Energy Services,
Inc.'s (“Halliburton”) Motion for Summary
Judgment, filed July 25, 2017. On August 8, 2017, plaintiff
filed its response, and on August 15, 2017, Halliburton filed
its reply. On September 20, 2017, plaintiff filed its
supplemental response and objection, and on September 26,
2017, Halliburton filed its reply to plaintiff's
supplemental response and objection. Based on the
parties' submissions, the Court makes its determination.
and defendant Newfield Exploration Mid-Continent, Inc.
(“Newfield”) are neighboring oil well owners in
Kingfisher County, Oklahoma. Newfield drills horizontally,
and Singer owns a nearby producing vertical well-bore.
Plaintiff alleges that Newfield engaged in hydraulic
fracturing and that plaintiff's producing well-bore was
damaged as a result. Newfield hired Halliburton to provide
the hydraulic fracturing services.
9, 2016, plaintiff filed the instant action. Plaintiff
alleges negligence claims against Halliburton. Halliburton
now moves this Court for summary judgment on all of
plaintiff's claims against it.
II. Summary Judgment Standard
“Summary judgment is appropriate if the record shows
that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and
that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of
law. The moving party is entitled to summary judgment where
the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier
of fact to find for the non-moving party. When applying this
standard, [the Court] examines the record and reasonable
inferences drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the
non-moving party.” 19 Solid Waste Dep't Mechs.
v. City of Albuquerque, 156 F.3d 1068, 1071-72 (10th
Cir. 1998) (internal citations and quotations omitted).
disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit
under the governing law will properly preclude the entry of
summary judgment. Furthermore, the non-movant has a burden of
doing more than simply showing there is some metaphysical
doubt as to the material facts. Rather, the relevant inquiry
is whether the evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to
require submission to a jury or whether it is so one-sided
that one party must prevail as a matter of law.”
Neustrom v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 156 F.3d 1057, 1066
(10th Cir. 1998) (internal citations and quotations omitted).
is fundamental that three elements must be shown in order to
establish actionable negligence: (1) existence of a duty on
the part of the defendant to protect plaintiff from injury;
(2) defendant's breach of the duty; and (3) injury to
plaintiff proximately resulting therefrom.” Scott
v. Archon Grp., L.P., 191 P.3d 1207, 1211 (Okla. 2008).
Halliburton asserts that plaintiff has failed to come forth
with any evidence showing that Halliburton breached any duty
to plaintiff or that any such breach was the proximate cause
of plaintiff's claimed damages. Halliburton, therefore,
contends that it is entitled to summary judgment.
Court has carefully reviewed the parties' briefs and
evidentiary submissions. Viewing the evidence in the light
most favorable to plaintiff and viewing all reasonable
inferences in plaintiff's favor, the Court finds that
Halliburton is entitled to summary judgment as to
plaintiff's claims against it. Specifically, the Court
finds that plaintiff has failed to present sufficient
evidence showing that Halliburton breached any duty to
plaintiff. The only evidence submitted by plaintiff as to
this element are the statement contained in the affidavit of
Goetz Schuppan, the business managing member of plaintiff,
that Halliburton gave plaintiff no advance notice of the
hydraulic fracturing and the opinion of plaintiff's
expert J. Daniel Arthur that neither Newfield nor its
contractor (Halliburton) provided prior notification to
plaintiff regarding the timing of the hydraulic fracturing.
Plaintiff, however, does not present any evidence or legal
support that Halliburton, in addition to Newfield, was
required to provide such notice. Further, even assuming
plaintiff has submitted sufficient evidence to show that
Halliburton breached its duty to plaintiff by failing to
provide notification to plaintiff prior to the hydraulic
fracturing, the Court finds that plaintiff has failed to
submit any evidence that said breach (the failure to notify)
was the proximate cause of plaintiffs injury.
for the reasons set forth above, the Court GRANTS
Halliburton's Motion for ...