ConocoPhillips Company v. Southeastern Energy Corporation et al

Filing 51

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER that the 34 Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED in part. Defendant must repay the unamortized funds in the amount of $70,703.95, plus interest at the 6% judgment rate. An appropriate judgment will be entered under Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court reserves ruling on the remaining portions of the summary judgment motion. Signed by Honorable William Keith Watkins on 5/7/2009. (dmn)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA N O R T H E R N DIVISION C O N O C O P H IL L IP S COMPANY, P la in tif f , v. S O U T H E A S T E R N ENERGY, CORPORATION, et al., D e f e n d a n ts. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) C A S E NO. 2:08-CV-281-WKW [WO] M E M O R A N D U M OPINION AND ORDER O n May 6, 2009, a hearing was held on Plaintiff ConocoPhillips Company's (" C o n o c o P h i llip s " ) motion for summary judgment (Mot. Summ. J. (Doc. # 34)). ConocoPhillips moved for summary judgment on each of its claims and on each of the c o u n te rc la im s asserted by Defendants. (Mot. Summ. J. 1-2.) For the following reasons, p a rtia l summary judgment is due to be granted. The court reserves ruling on the remaining p o rtio n s of the summary judgment motion. C o n o c o P h illip s sued Defendants for unamoritized funds it claims are due to be repaid b e c a u s e Southeastern Energy, Corporation ("SE Energy") debranded from the C o n o coP hillips gasoline brands and according to ConocoPhillips, thereby triggered a contract p ro v is io n requiring repayment of funds provided to improve SE Energy's facilities. (Complaint 9-18.) Repayments for four facilities are at issue. (Complaint 15.) SE E n e rg y's response opposing summary judgment does not dispute the repayments for the L a G ra n g e , Georgia, and Anniston, Alabama locations. The parties also made representations at the hearing that repayments for those locations will be made. Summary judgment on the re p a ym e n t of funds for those locations is therefore due to be granted. T h i s ruling does implicate or resolve, however, any of the contract and related d is p u te s regarding the remaining two locations. It provides no opinion as to the contractual o b lig a tio n s governing the LaGrange and Anniston locations, and the parties should not in te rp re t the ruling to affect their claims, defenses, or arguments for the remaining locations. SE Energy conceded its obligation to pay back funds on the La Grange and Anniston lo c a tio n s , and this opinion merely recognizes and enforces that concession. A c c o rd in g ly, it is ORDERED that the motion for summary judgment (Doc. # 34) is G R A N T E D in part. Defendants must repay the unamortized funds in the amount of $ 7 0 ,7 0 3 .9 5 ,1 plus interest at the 6% judgment rate. An appropriate judgment will be entered u n d e r Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court reserves ruling on the re m a in in g portions of the summary judgment motion. D O N E this 7th day of May 2009. /s/ W. Keith Watkins UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE The amount due breaks down to $61,721.36 for the LeGrange location, and $8,982.59 for the Anniston location 1 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?