Northern Oil & Gas, Inc. v. EOG Resources, Inc.

Filing 157

ORDER by Judge Daniel L. Hovland granting 145 Motion for Summary Judgment (MM)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA
Northern Oil & Gas Inc.,
Plaintiff,
vs.
EOG Resources Inc.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER GRANTING
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case No. 1:16-cv-388

Before the Court is the Defendant’s motion for summary judgment filed on June 11, 2021.
See Doc. No. 145. The Plaintiff did not respond to the motion. For the reasons set forth below, the
Defendant’s motion is granted.

I.

BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Northern Oil & Gas Inc. (“Northern”) is a Minnesota Corporation with its principal

office in Minnesota. Defendant EOG Resources Inc., (“EOG”) is a Delaware corporation with its
principal office in Texas. Northern brought this diversity action against EOG in an attempt to quiet
title as to competing mineral leasehold interests in certain property located in McKenzie County,
North Dakota. The Court granted EOG’s motion to dismiss on January 15, 2019, on res judicata
grounds. Northern appealed. On July 27, 2020, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed finding
a lack of privity prevented dismissal on res judicata grounds. After additional discovery, EOG
moved for summary judgment on June 11, 2021, citing the Duhig rule and the North Dakota
Supreme Court’s opinion in Johnson v. Finkle, 837 N.W.2d 132 (2013) in support of its motion. To
date, Northern has not responded to the motion and the time for doing so has long since passed.
Trial is scheduled to commence on December 6, 2021.
1

II.

LEGAL DISCUSSION
Summary judgment is appropriate when the evidence, viewed in a light most favorable to the

non-moving party, indicates no genuine issues of material fact exist and the moving party is entitled
to judgment as a matter of law. Davison v. City of Minneapolis, Minn., 490 F.3d 648, 654 (8th Cir.
2007); Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). Summary judgment is not appropriate if there are factual disputes that
may affect the outcome of the case under the applicable substantive law. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby,
Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). An issue of material fact is genuine if the evidence would allow a
reasonable jury to return a verdict for the non-moving party. Id.
The Court must inquire whether the evidence presents sufficient disagreement to require the
submission of the case to a jury or if it is so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law.
Diesel Mach., Inc. v. B.R. Lee Indus., Inc., 418 F.3d 820, 832 (8th Cir. 2005). The moving party
bears the burden of demonstrating an absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Forrest v. Kraft
Foods, Inc., 285 F.3d 688, 691 (8th Cir. 2002). A party opposing a properly supported motion for
summary judgment may not rest upon mere allegations or denials or its pleading, but must set out
specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial. Ivy v. Kimbrough, 115 F.3d 550, 552 (8th Cir.
1997).
Further, “[a] party’s failure to serve and file a memorandum or a response within the
prescribed time may subject a motion to summary ruling.” See D.N.D. Local Civ. R. 7.1(F). Under
Civil Local Rule 7.1(F), the Court finds that the Northern’s failure to respond to EOG’s motion for
summary judgment is an admission the motion is well taken. See D.N.D. Local Civ. R. 7.1(F). In
addition, the Court agrees with EOG that the North Dakota Supreme Court’s construction of the very
same deed in question in this case in Johnson v. Finkle was correct, and reformation of the deed is
not permissible. Therefore, EOG’s motion for summary judgment is granted.
2

III.

CONCLUSION
The Court has carefully reviewed the entire record, EOG’s brief, and the relevant case law.

For the reasons set forth above, EOG’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 145) is
GRANTED. The Court further finds and declares as follows:
1.

EOG’s lease covers one half of the minerals in the subject property, while
Northern’s lease covers none.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 26th day of October, 2021.
/s/ Daniel L. Hovland
Daniel L. Hovland, District Judge
United States District Court

3