Spring Creek Exploration & Production Company, LLC v. Hess Bakken Invenstment II, LLC et al

Filing 368

ORDER. ORDERED that the parties' Agreed Motion to Dismiss Existing Lease Claims Without Prejudice 367 is granted in part. ORDERED that plaintiffs' first and second claims for relief for breach of contract claims for past damages agains t Hess and Statoil, see Docket No. 80 at 8-9, are dismissed without prejudice. ORDERED that the trial preparation conference scheduled for January 6, 2017 and the trial scheduled to commence on January 23, 2017 are vacated. ORDERED that defendan ts' Unopposed Motion to Continue the Trial on the Existing Lease Claims, and Rule 54(B) Certification as Final Judgment of All the New Lease Claims 366 is denied as moot. ORDERED that this case is closed. Signed by Judge Philip A. Brimmer on 12/15/16. (jhawk, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Philip A. Brimmer
Civil Action No. 14-cv-00134-PAB-KMT
SPRING CREEK EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION COMPANY, LLC, and
GOLD COAST ENERGY, LLC,
Plaintiffs,
v.
HESS BAKKEN INVESTMENT II, LLC, f/k/a TRZ ENERGY LLC, and
STATOIL OIL & GAS LP, f/k/a BRIGHAM OIL & GAS LP,
Defendants.

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the parties’ Agreed Motion to Dismiss Existing
Lease Claims Without Prejudice [Docket No. 367].
Plaintiffs Spring Creek Exploration & Production Company, LLC (“Spring Creek”)
and Gold Coast Energy LLC (“Gold Coast”) alleged various causes of action against
defendants Statoil Oil & Gas LP (“Statoil”) and Hess Bakken Investments II, LLC
(“Hess”) related to (a) payment on existing oil and gas lease claims and (b) claims
related to new oil and gas leases. Docket No. 366 at 1-2, ¶ 2. On September 5, 2014,
the Court dismissed some of plaintiff’s claims related to new leases, which included
both breach of contract and tort claims. Docket No. 48. On March 24, 2016, the Court
entered an order granting partial summary judgment against plaintiffs on their claim for
working interest damages arising from defendant Hess’ alleged breach of contract.
Docket No. 286. Most recently, on September 8, 2016, the Court entered an order

granting summary judgment against plaintiffs on all of plaintiffs’ remaining new lease
claims. Docket No. 362. After the Court’s summary judgment ruling, the only remaining
claims to be tried are plaintiffs’ breach of contract claims against Hess and Statoil for
the alleged failure to honor plaintiffs’ overriding royalty interest in the existing leases.
Docket No. 362 at 27, 37-38.
The parties have agreed to dismiss the breach of contract claims without
prejudice and to arbitrate them instead. Docket No. 367 at 2, ¶ 3. Because the parties
have agreed to dismiss the breach of contract claims, and all other claims have been
decided in defendants’ favor, the Court finds that entry of final judgment is appropriate.
The parties also request that the Court refer the remaining claims in the case to
arbitration pursuant to the parties’ Existing Lease Claim Arbitration Agreement. Docket
No. 367 at 2. The parties apparently entered into this agreement as a commendable
means of resolving the breach of contract claims in order to allow judgment to enter.
However, the parties identify no basis or authority for the Court to order them, pursuant
to a recent contractual agreement not part of the claims in this case, to arbitrate the
breach of contract claims. Cf. Exzavior McCulley v. Central State Logistics, Inc., Civil
Action No. 15-cv-00587-PAB-KMT (D. Colo. Aug. 25, 2016) (refusing to enforce
post-dismissal arbitration agreement). Although the Court will not order the parties to
arbitrate those claims, the Court assumes that all parties to the agreement will honor its
provisions.
For the foregoing reasons, it is

2

ORDERED that the parties’ Agreed Motion to Dismiss Existing Lease Claims
Without Prejudice [Docket No. 367] is granted in part. It is further
ORDERED that plaintiffs’ first and second claims for relief for breach of contract
claims for past damages against Hess and Statoil, see Docket No. 80 at 8-9, are
dismissed without prejudice. It is further
ORDERED that the trial preparation conference scheduled for January 6, 2017
and the trial scheduled to commence on January 23, 2017 are vacated. It is further
ORDERED that defendants’ Unopposed Motion to Continue the T rial on the
Existing Lease Claims, and Rule 54(B) Certification as Final Judgment of All the New
Lease Claims [Docket No. 366] is denied as moot. It is further
ORDERED that this case is closed.

DATED December 15, 2016.
BY THE COURT:

s/Philip A. Brimmer
PHILIP A. BRIMMER
United States District Judge

3