Wallace B. Roderick Revocable Living Trust v. XTO Energy, Inc.

Filing 336

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 329 XTO's Motion to Stay Case. Signed by Chief Judge J. Thomas Marten on 2/24/15. (mss)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
WALLACE B. RODERICK REVOCABLE
LIVING TRUST, Trustee Amanda
Roderick on behalf of itself
And all Others similarly
Situated,
Plaintiffs,
Case No. 08-1330–JTM-KMH
v.
XTO ENERGY, INC.,
Defendant.
___________________________________
WALLACE B. RODERICK REVOCABLE
LIVING TRUST, Trustee Amanda
Roderick on behalf of itself
And John W. Fitzgerald, on
Behalf of himself and all
Others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Case No.12-1215-JTM-KMH
OXY USA INC.,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
These cases arise out of the alleged underpayment of gas well lease royalties.
They were consolidated for pretrial matters on December 30, 2014. No. 08-1330 (Dkt.
323); No. 12-1215 (Dkt. 178). On December 10, 2014, the Kansas Supreme Court heard

1

oral argument in Fawcett v. Oil Producers Inc. of Kan., No. 12-208666-AS, 2013 Kan. LEXIS
1340 (Dec. 27, 2013) (granting review). Fawcett presents two issues central to these cases.
XTO now moves the court to stay its case, No. 08-1330 (Dkt. 329), until the Kansas
Supreme Court rules in Fawcett.
It is well settled that it is within the discretion of the trial court to stay
proceedings. Landis v. North Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-55 (1936). “[T]he power to stay
proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition
of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and
for litigants.” Id. at 254. When exercising its discretion to stay proceedings, the trial
court must weigh competing interests. Id. at 254-55 (citing Kansas City So. R. Co. v.
United States, 282 U.S. 760, 763 (1931)).
The Kansas Supreme Court’s ruling in Fawcett may clarify Kansas law regarding
(1) the applicability of the Marketable Condition Rule (“MCR”) in Kansas oil and gas
leases, and (2) the scope of the MCR. Both issues bear directly on the merits of these
cases. Motions regarding class certification and partial summary judgment are pending
in both cases. Those motions will require contemplation of the very issues presented in
Fawcett. Any negative effects of delay caused by a stay in this case will be outweighed
by the court’s ability to properly adjudicate the pending motions without facing the
specter of a contrary decision in Fawcett. Therefore, the court finds it prudent to stay
both cases until the Kansas Supreme Court rules in Fawcett. XTO’s Motion to Stay Case,
No. 08-1330 (Dkt. 329) is therefore moot.

2

IT IS ACCORDINGLY ORDERED this 24th day of February, 2015, that both
cases, No. 08-1330 and No. 12-1215, are STAYED until further notice, and XTO’s Motion
to Stay (Dkt. 329) is DENIED.
s\ J. Thomas Marten
J. THOMAS MARTEN, JUDGE

3