Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Reirdon v. Cimarex Energy Co.

United States District Court, E.D. Oklahoma

June 25, 2019



          Steven P. Shreder United States Magistrate Judge.

         This matter comes before the Court on partial motion for summary judgment by Defendants Cimarex Energy Company and Cimarex Energy Company of Colorado (together, “Cimarex”). For the reasons set forth below, the Defendants' Partial Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff's Non-Contract Claims and Brief in Support [Docket No. 83] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

         Procedural History

         Plaintiff filed this case in this Court on October 14, 2016. Docket Nos. 1-2. On January 19, 2017, this Court held a status and scheduling conference, at which time the Court granted the parties leave to file a series of partial summary judgment motions without prejudice to ultimately filing a summary judgment motion on the main merits of the case. Docket No. 37. Plaintiff filed an Amended Class Action Complaint on October 11, 2017, following this Court's ruling on a partial Motion to Dismiss. Docket Nos. 25, 42, 43. Defendants then filed a series of partial summary judgment motions. Docket Nos. 53-55. The Court then stayed the case on June 26, 2018, pending formal mediation by the parties, and the case was thereafter reopened following the conclusion of mediation on September 25, 2018. Docket Nos. 78, 81. Plaintiff contends in the Amended Class Action Complaint that Cimarex used, caused to be used, and/or allowed third parties to use natural gas from Oklahoma wells, but that despite express provisions in the oil and gas leases, Cimarex “knowingly and systematically underpaid royalty” to him through a policy of not paying royalties for fuel gas, and that Cimarex failed to disclose on monthly royalty check stubs that it “was not paying royalty on the full volume and value of production from the Oklahoma wells.” Docket No. 43, pp. 1-2, ¶¶ 1-6.

         In addition to the personal allegations, Plaintiff asserts that he is acting as a representative of a class defined as:

All non-excluded persons or entities who are or were royalty owners in Oklahoma wells where Cimarex, including its predecessors or affiliates, is or was the well operator and working interest owner (or, as a non-operating working interest owner, Cimarex separately marketed gas), and who, from January 1, 2013 are or were entitled to share in royalty proceeds payable under oil and gas leases that contain an express provision stating that royalty will be paid on gas used off the lease premises and/or in manufacture of products.
The persons or entities excluded from the Class are: (1) agencies, departments or instrumentalities of the United States of America and the State of Oklahoma; (2) officers of the Court involved in this action; (3) publicly traded oil and gas exploration companies and their affiliates; and (4) persons or entities that Plaintiff's counsel is, or may be prohibited from representing under Rule 1.7 of the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct.

Docket No. 43, pp. 3-4, ¶ 15. The class allegations indicate that the common questions of fact include: (a) whether, under express terms of the oil and gas leases under which Reirdon and the putative Class are entitled to be paid royalty, Cimarex has or had a duty to pay royalty on Fuel Gas; (b) whether Cimarex has paid the full amount of royalty owed on Fuel Gas; and (c) whether Cimarex's uniform royalty payment methodology breaches Cimarex's express duties to pay royalty on Fuel Gas. See Docket No. 43, pp. 4-5, ¶ 19. Plaintiff's First Amended Class Action Complaint sets out the following enumerated causes of action: (I) breach of contract, (II) unjust enrichment, and (III) fraud (actual and constructive) and deceit, as well as enumerated claims for (IV) an accounting and (V) an injunction. Having filed separate summary judgment motions as to the Plaintiff's breach of contract claim, the Defendants now move for summary judgment on Plaintiff's non-contract claims, Counts II-V.[1]

         Law Applicable

         Summary judgment is appropriate if the record shows that “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). A genuine issue of material fact exists when “there is sufficient evidence favoring the nonmoving party for a jury to return a verdict for that party.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249 (1986). The moving party must show the absence of a genuine issue of material fact, see Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325 (1986), with the evidence taken in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 157 (1970). However, “a party asserting that a fact cannot be or is genuinely disputed must support the assertion by . . . citing to particular parts of materials in the record . . . or . . . showing that the materials cited do not establish the absence or presence of a genuine dispute[.]” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c).

         Factual Background

         The undisputed facts reflect that Magnum Hunter, a wholly owned subsidiary of Cimarex Energy Co. is the lessee, but Cimarex distributes the royalties associated with the oil and gas wells and leases at issue in this lawsuit. Magnum Hunter sells the gas to Madill Gas Processing Company, L.L.C. (“Madill”), and delivers the gas to Madill at or near Madill's North Madill Compressor Station in Marshall County, Oklahoma. A pro rata share of the gas is used off the leased premises as Fuel Gas to power compressors which move the gas from the leased premises to Madill's gas processing plan. A pro rata share is also used to power machinery and equipment at Madill's gas processing plant, including compressors, an amine treater, and generators.

         After the initiation of this lawsuit, Defendants paid royalties on the value of the Fuel Gas used off premises to power the compressors and amine treater from January 1, 2013 to present, but to date have not paid royalties on a pro rata share of Fuel Gas used off the leased premises to: (i) cryogenically process gas into natural gas liquids and residue gas, (ii) deliver gas from the plant to a residue gas pipeline at the plant tailgate, and ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.