WAVELAND DRILLING PARTNERS III-B, LP, WAVELAND RESOURCE PARTNERS II, LP, WAVELAND DRILLING PARTNERS 2011-B, LP, AND WAVELAND DRILLING PARTNERS III-A, LP, Plaintiffs/Appellees,
NEW DOMINION, LLC, Defendant/Appellant.
Mandate Issued: 02/13/2019
FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY, OKLAHOMA,
HONORABLE PATRICIA G. PARRISH, TRIAL JUDGE.
Jarnigan Robertson, JAYNE JARNIGAN ROBERTSON, P.C., Oklahoma
City, Oklahoma, for Plaintiffs/Appellees,
M. Croll, HARTZOG, CONGER, CARSON & NEVILLE, Oklahoma
City, Oklahoma, and Fred M. Buxton, General Counsel, Tulsa,
Oklahoma, and Stephen Q. Peters, TOMLINS & PETERS, PLLC,
Tulsa, Oklahoma, for Defendant/Appellant.
Barbara G. Swinton, Presiding Judge.
Defendant/Appellant New Dominion, LLC (NDL) appeals from a
temporary injunction granted in favor of Plaintiffs/Appellees
Waveland Drilling Partners 2011-B, LP, Waveland Drilling
Partners III-A, LP, Waveland Drilling Partners III-B, LP, and
Waveland Resource Partners II, LP (Waveland) in the District
Court for Oklahoma County on December 9, 2016. NDL asserts
that it was denied due process by the entry of a temporary
injunction without an evidentiary hearing, and that the
temporary injunction was improperly granted under the facts
presented. We affirm.
Waveland instituted an action against NDL seeking a money
judgment and declaratory judgment related to the Restated and
Amended Eight East Participation Agreement (Participation
Agreement) between the parties. Under the Participation
Agreement, the Eight East Participants, who include Waveland,
sell gas from wells to the first purchaser of gas, who then
remits payment to NDL as contract operator of the wells. NDL
is required to remit the gas sales payments to the Eight East
Participants, including Waveland, their royalty owners, and
the State of Oklahoma for gross production taxes. In July of
2014, NDL was removed as operator of the gathering system by
a majority vote of the participants. NDL continues to serve
as contract operator of wells under the Participation
Agreement, but was notified in January 2016 that its right
"to market, collect the revenues from the Gas (including
natural gas liquid hydrocarbons and oil separated at the
wellhead or collected along the Gathering System) and to
distribute the net proceeds therefrom" was terminated by
the agreement of a majority of the Participants. NDL was also
notified that the parties had agreed that Hunton would take
over its obligations. Hunton then began selling condensate
collected from the Gathering System to Enerfin. When NDL
learned of the agreement with Enerfin, it demanded that
Hunton deliver the proceeds received on condensate sales to
NDL so that the proceeds could be disbursed to the
participants and royalty owners.
NDL withheld from natural gas proceeds which were held in
trust for Waveland $70, 000.00, the amount that it estimated
due for condensate sales in the month of September 2016.
Waveland claimed that NDL then threatened to distribute the
$70, 000.00 to third parties, including other working
interest owners, royalty owners, and the Oklahoma Tax
Waveland sought and obtained an emergency ex parte
restraining order (TRO) on November 20, 2016, precluding NDL
from distributing the amount "offset" from Waveland
proceeds and from making further offsets. NDL filed an
objection and motion to vacate the TRO, and issued a notice
of hearing for November 28, 2016. Hearings were held on
November 28, December 2, and December 6, 2016. A temporary
injunction was issued in favor of Waveland on December 10,
2016. NDL appeals from this order.
An action involving the grant or denial of injunctive relief
is equitable in nature. An order granting an injunction will
not be reversed unless the trial court abused its discretion
or the decision is clearly against the weight of the
evidence. Dowell v. Pletcher, 2013 OK 50, ¶ 5,
304 P.3d 457.
NDL argues that it was denied due process below because
Waveland failed to give NDL adequate notice of their
emergency ex parte motion for temporary restraining
order; Waveland's reason for failing to give notice was
"contrived"; and the TRO changed the status quo.
NDL also argues that it was deprived of due process by entry