Energy Investments et al v. Greehey & Company
Filing
81
ORDER denying 74 Motion to Enforce Judgment; denying 74 Motion for Entry of Judgment under Rule 54(b). Signed by Magistrate Judge John Johnston on 2/5/2016. (SLL, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
GREAT FALLS DIVISION
ENERGY INVESTMENTS, INC., a
Colorado corporation, and PINE
PETROLEUM, INC., a North Dakota
corporation,
CV 14-13-GF-JTJ
ORDER
Plaintiffs,
vs.
GREEHEY & COMPANY, LTD., a
Texas limited partnership,
Defendant.
Plaintiffs Energy Investments, Inc. and Pine Petroleum, Inc. filed a motion
for entry of final judgment in their favor on the portion of the claims already
adjudicated, specifically for $2,998,515.35. Plaintiffs further request the final
judgment include an award of pre- and post-judgment interest. (Doc. 73.)
Defendant Greehey & Company, LTD opposes the motion, arguing “[t]here would
then be two separate appeals of parts of the same breach of contract claim, creating
the possibility of serial, piecemeal remands and retrials of portions of the breach of
contract claim.” Defendant argues the issue of awarding interest will be
appropriately resolved once final judgment is entered. (Doc. 77 at 3.)
1
Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “[w]hen an
action presents more than one claim for relief . . . the court may direct entry of a
final judgment as to one or more, but fewer than all, claims or parties only if the
court expressly determines that there is no just reason for delay.” When
considering a request to enter final judgment under Rule 54(b), a “district court
must first determine that it has rendered a ‘final judgment,’ that is, a judgment that
is ‘an ultimate disposition of an individual claim entered in the course of a multiple
claims action.’ ” Woods v. GCC Bend, LLC, 422 F.3d 873, 878 (9th Cir. 2005)
(quoting Curtis-Wright Corp. v. Gen. Elec. Corp., 446 U.S. 1, 7 (1980)). The
Court then determines, pursuant to the rule, whether there is any just reason for
delay. “It is left to the sound discretion of the district court to determine the
appropriate time when each final decision in a multiple claims action is ready for
appeal.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). “This discretion is to be exercised
in the interest of sound judicial administration,” and the district court should take
pains to “assure that application of the Rule effectively preserves the historic
federal policy against piecemeal appeals.” Id. (citations and internal quotation
marks omitted). “Plainly, sound judicial administration does not require that Rule
54(b) requests be granted routinely.” Id. at 879 (citations and internal quotation
marks omitted).
2
Plaintiffs’ Complaint contains two claims: (1) a breach of contract claim
based on Defendant’s failure to pay prospect fees related to the acquisition of
certain leases and failure to assign to Plaintiffs overriding royalty interests carved
out of the oil and gas leases acquired pursuant to the parties’ agreement; and (2) an
action for “specific performance of the Agreement in respect of the assignment of
the Plaintiffs’ [overriding royalty interests] and to recover the costs attributable
thereto.” (Doc. 1 at 6-7.) Plaintiffs seek general and specific damages, pre- and
post-judgment interest, costs and attorney’s fees, and an order directing Defendant
and it affiliates “to specifically perform their contractual obligations under the
Agreement by executing appropriate assignments[,] thereby conveying the
Plaintiffs’ [overriding royalty interests] to Plaintiffs.” Id. at 8.
On October 15, 2015, the Court issued an order granting in part and denying
in part Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 67.) The Court granted
summary judgment as to the prospect fees Plaintiffs sought from leases acquired in
the Area of Mutual Interest by Defendant or its agents but denied summary
judgment as to leases acquired by Plaintiffs or their agents. The Court concluded
that the Area of Mutual Interest Agreement was unambiguous. (Doc. 67 at 7.)
Defendant has indicated it disagrees with the Court’s ruling on this issue and
intends to appeal the ruling. (Doc. 77 at 6.)
3
If the Court grants the motion to certify, there would be two separate appeals
of parts of the same breach of contract claim and of the key issue of whether the
parties’ agreement is ambiguous. This would increase “the chance that [the Court
of Appeals] will have to revisit the same facts . . . in a successive appeal.” Wood,
422 F.3d at 882. Because of the Court’s obligation to ensure judicial efficiency,
certification is not appropriate.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Combined Motion to Certify
Partial Summary Judgment as Final and Award Pre- and Post-Judgment Interest
(Doc. 74) is DENIED.
Dated the 5th day of February, 2016.
4
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?