Cecil v. BP America Production Company

Filing 325

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Kimberly E. West denying 293 Motion to Enforce and denying 296 Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Motion. (adw, Deputy Clerk)

6:16-cv-00410-KEW Document 325 Filed in ED/OK on 05/28/20 Page 1 of 6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
JOHN CECIL, on behalf of
himself and all others
similarly situated,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
BP AMERICA PRODUCTION COMPANY
(f/k/a Amoco Production
Company)(including BP Amoco
Corporation, ARCO, BP
Exploration, Inc., BP
Corporation North
America, Inc., and BP Energy
Company).
Defendants.

Case No. CIV-16-410-KEW

O R D E R
This
Members,

matter

comes

Chieftain

before

Royalty

the

Company

Court
and

on

Settlement

Castlerock

Class

Resources,

Inc.’s Motion to Exercise Exclusive and Continuing Jurisdiction to
Enforce, Construe, and Interpret the Cecil Settlement Agreement
and Request for Hearing (Docket Entry #293). This action was filed
as a putative class action to “bring claims to rectify BP’s actual,
knowing, and willful underpayment or non-payment of royalties on
natural gas and/or constituents of the gas stream produced from
wells through improper accounting methods (such as not paying on
the starting price for gas products but instead taking improper
deductions) and by failing to account for and pay royalties . . .

6:16-cv-00410-KEW Document 325 Filed in ED/OK on 05/28/20 Page 2 of 6

.”1

On April 13, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Certify

Settlement Class, Preliminarily Approve Class Action Settlement,
Approve Form and Manner of Notice, and Set Date for Final Fairness
Hearing.2

Appended to the Motion was the parties’ Settlement

Agreement.

After

preliminarily

a

approving

hearing,
the

the

Court

settlement

settlement on September 5, 2018.3

entered

class

and

an

Order

associated

An Order of final approval of

the class and class action settlement was entered on November 19,
2018 after a final fairness hearing.4
Meanwhile,

Chieftain

Royalty

Company

and

Castlerock

Resources, Inc. filed a putative class action case against BP
America Production Company in the District Court in and for Nowata
County, Oklahoma which was eventually removed to the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma on January
23, 2018.5

Plaintiffs asserted claims for “Defendant’s willful

and ongoing violations of Oklahoma law related to payment of
statutory interest on late payments of oil and gas production
proceeds . . . to persons with a legal interest in the mineral
acreage under a well which entitles such person(s)

. . .

to payments of O&G Proceeds.”6

1

   See, Plaintiff’s Second Amended Class Action Complaint (Docket Entry #180).
2
  Docket Entry #171.
3
  Docket Entry #224.
4
  Docket Entry #259.
5
  Chieftain Royalty Company and Castlerock Resources, Inc. v. BP America
Production Company, Case No. 4:18-CV-00054-GKF-JFJ.
6
  See, Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (ND Docket Entry #39).

2 

6:16-cv-00410-KEW Document 325 Filed in ED/OK on 05/28/20 Page 3 of 6

After the Cecil case was settled in this District, the
Chieftain case proceeded in the Northern District culminating in
Defendant filing a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment seeking to
enforce the Cecil settlement against the claims asserted by the
Chieftain Plaintiffs, contending that the claims were subsumed
into the class settled in Cecil.

In response, the Chieftain

Plaintiffs sought to stay the case pending in the Northern District
of Oklahoma to permit this Court to interpret the terms of the
Cecil Settlement Agreement and the defined Released Parties to
determine

whether

the

claims

in

Chieftain

were

released.

Alternatively, Chieftain Plaintiffs sought to transfer the case to
this District. The Chieftain Plaintiffs also filed the subject
Motion in this case.
Judge Frizzell in the Chieftain case denied the transfer of
the case by minute order.

He also denied the request to stay the

case, specifically finding “as ‘[d]eciding whether and how prior
litigation has preclusive effect is usually the bailiwick of the
second court . . . .’ Smith v. Bayer Corp., 564 U.S. 299, 307
(2011).”7
The subject Motion refers to the retention of jurisdiction
terms in the Settlement Agreement which states that
All disputes and proceedings with respect to
the
administration,
enforcement,
and
interpretation of the Settlement Agreement

7

  ND Docket Entry #79.

3 

6:16-cv-00410-KEW Document 325 Filed in ED/OK on 05/28/20 Page 4 of 6

shall be subject to the jurisdiction of the
Court.8
The Order Approving the Settlement and Final Judgment also
included language that this Court would retain jurisdiction over
the “implementation, enforcement, construction, and interpretation
of the Settlement Agreement and resulting Settlement.”9
It appears that the primary point of contention lies in
whether the class and Released Parties defined in this case
included the claims asserted in the Chieftain case.

In an attempt

to have this issue resolved, the Chieftain Plaintiffs seek to have
this Court invade the jurisdiction of the District Court in the
Northern District and enjoin that action for proceeding.

This

Court certainly retained jurisdiction in the terms of its Order to
interpret the terms of the Settlement Agreement as it pertains to
this case and the claims asserted in this case.
not without limitations.

This retention is

The Chieftain Plaintiffs would have this

Court impose its jurisdiction beyond the confines of the Cecil
case and interfere in the administration of the Chieftain case.
This

expands

boundaries.

the

retained

jurisdiction

beyond

the

intended

While the case pertains to the relationship between

a state court and a federal court, the sentiment remains persuasive
– the second subsequent court should be permitted to determine

8

  Settlement Agreement (Docket Entry #171-1).
9
  Order (Docket Entry #259).

4 

6:16-cv-00410-KEW Document 325 Filed in ED/OK on 05/28/20 Page 5 of 6

whether a prior judgment has preclusive effect over the claims
asserted in the case pending before it.
299, 307 (2011)(citations omitted).

Smith v. Bayer, 564 U.S.

Indeed, Judge Frizzell has

now done so through his recent ruling on Defendant’s Motion for
Partial Summary Judgment, which is both well-supported and wellreasoned.10

This ruling demonstrates that Judge Frizzell was in

an equal or better position to this Court in determining the effect
of the Cecil Settlement Agreement and Judgment upon the claims and
parties in the Chieftain case pending before him.

Nothing in the

Settlement Agreement or the Judgment precluded him from doing so.
This Court will not disturb his assertion of jurisdiction or his
ruling.
IT

IS

THEREFORE

ORDERED

that

Settlement

Class

Members,

Chieftain Royalty Company and Castlerock Resources, Inc.’s Motion
to Exercise Exclusive and Continuing Jurisdiction to Enforce,
Construe, and Interpret the Cecil Settlement Agreement and Request
for Hearing (Docket Entry #293) is hereby DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that BP America’s Motion for Extension
of Time to Respond to Chieftain and Castlerock’s Motion Relating
to Its Preclusion Defense in the Northern District of Oklahoma
(Docket Entry #296) is hereby DENIED as a response is not required
since this Court may determine its jurisdiction sua sponte.

10

  Order (ND Docket Entry #122).

5 

6:16-cv-00410-KEW Document 325 Filed in ED/OK on 05/28/20 Page 6 of 6

IT IS SO ORDERED this 28th day of May, 2020.

______________________________
KIMBERLY E. WEST
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

6