Jeter et al v. Wild West Gas, LLC et al

Filing 333

OPINION AND ORDER by Judge Terence Kern ; directing parties to file joint status report ( Status Report due by 10/21/2019); denying 328 Motion to Reconsider (lmc, Chambers)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
KEVIN JETER,
JOE A. JETER,
BARBARA LUCAS,
JAMES H. MILLER,
SHARON RIGSBY MILLER,
LARRY SMITH,
JANICE SUE PARKER,
individually and as Class Representatives
on Behalf of All Similarly-Situated Persons,
Plaintiffs,
v.
BULLSEYE ENERGY INC.,
CEP MID-CONTINENT, LLC,
KRS&K, an Oklahoma Partnership,
GASHOMA, INC.
PURGATORY CREEK GAS, INC.,
REDBIRD OIL, an Oklahoma Partnership,
WILD WEST GAS, LLC,
WHITE HAWK GAS, INC.,
FOUNTAINHEAD, LLC,
ROBERT M. KANE,
LOUISE KANE ROARK,
ANNE KANE SEIDMAN,
MARK KANE,
PAMELA BROWN,
GARY BROWN,
Defendants.

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

Case No. 12-CV-411-TCK-FHM

and
KEVIN JETER,
JOE A. JETER,
BARBARA LUCAS,
JAMES H. MILLER,
SHARON RIGSBY MILLER,
LARRY SMITH,
JANICE SUE PARKER,
JAMES D. ENLOE,
CAROLYN R. ENLOE, and

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 15-CV-455-TCK-JFJ

SCOTT BAILY,
individually and as Class Representatives
on Behalf of All Similarly-Situated Persons,

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

Plaintiffs,
v.
CEP MID-CONTINENT, LLC,
ROBERT M. KANE,
LOUISE KANE ROARK,
ANNE KANE SEIDMAN,
MARK KANE,
PAMELA BROWN, and
GARY BROWN,
Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is the Motion to Reconsider Orders of August 5 and 7, 2019 filed by
defendants Bullseye Energy, Inc. (now Bullseye Energy, LLC); CEP Mid-Continent, LLC;
KRS&K; Robert M. Kane; Louise Kane Roark; Ann Kane Seidman; Mark Kane, Pamela Brown;
and Gary Brown (“Defendants”). Doc. 328. Plaintiffs oppose the motion. Doc. 329.
On July 22, 2019, the Court entered its Opinion and Order denying the Joint Motion for
Final Approval of Settlement Agreement filed by Defendants and Plaintiffs Kevin Jeter and Joe
A. Jeter (“the Jeters”). Doc. 324. On August 5, 2019, the Court entered its Order striking
Defendants’ Motion to Strike Proposed Amended Class Definition as moot in light of the Court’s
July 22, 2019 Opinion and Order, and on August 7, 2019, the Court entered its Order striking
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification against Defendants as moot in light of the Court’s July
22, 2019 Opinion and Order. Docs. 324, 326, 327.

2

Defendants argue that neither Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification against Defendants,
nor Defendants’ Motion to Strike Proposed Amended Class Definition are rendered moot by
reason of the Court’s July 22 Opinion and Order.
A motion to reconsider may be considered on the following grounds: “(1) an intervening
change in the controlling law, (2) new evidence previously unavailable, and (3) the need to correct
clear error or prevent manifest injustice.” Servants of the Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1012
(10th Cir. 2000) (citing Brumark Corp. v. Samson Resources Corp., 57 F.3d 941, 948 (10th Cir.
1995)). In other words, when the court has “misapprehended the facts, a party’s position, or the
controlling law,” a motion to reconsider is appropriate.

Id.; see Syntroleum Corp., 2009 WL

761322, at *1. Parties’ efforts to “revisit issues already addressed or advance arguments that could
have been raised in prior briefing” will not be considered. Maul, 2006 WL 3447629, at *1.
The Motion for Class Certification was filed on August 12, 2016. Doc. 219. As the Court
previously noted, since that time, there have been significant developments in case law concerning
both the merits of Plaintiffs’ claims and the likelihood of class certification surviving on appeal.
See Naylor Farms v. Chaparral Energy, LLC, 923 F.3d 779, 784 (10th Cir. 2019). Doc. 324 at 56. See also Pummill v. Hancock Expl. LLC, 419 P.3d 1268, 1271, 1276-78 (Okla. Civ. App. 2018).
In addition, counsel for the previous class representatives was removed and counsel for the nonsettling plaintiffs was appointed as interim class counsel. Docs. 299, 323. Finally, the damages
analysis upon which the proposed settlement is based is outdated, and class members argue they
are owed at least three additional years of royalty payments. Doc. 324 at 4.
Given the developments in applicable law, the change in class representatives and the
staleness of existing discovery, the Court stands by its previous rulings. Defendants’ Motion to
Reconsider (Doc. 329) is denied.

3

The parties are directed to submit a status report, including proposed deadlines, by October
21, 2019.
ENTERED this 23rd day of September, 2019.

4