United States of America v. Osage Wind, LLC et al
Filing
153
OPINION AND ORDER by Judge Gregory K Frizzell ; reinstating document(s); vacating/setting aside order(s); granting 141 Motion to Reconsider (Re: 98 MOTION for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint for Declaratory Judgment and Dam ages , 139 Order,, Vacating/Setting Aside Order(s),, Ruling on Motion for Leave to File Document(s), 137 Minute Order,, Ruling on Motion for Leave to File Document(s), ) (Documents Terminated: 139 Order,, Vacating/Setting Aside Order(s),, Ruling on Motion for Leave to File Document(s), 137 Minute Order,, Ruling on Motion for Leave to File Document(s), ) (crp, Dpty Clk)
Case 4:14-cv-00704-GKF-JFJ Document 153 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 05/07/20 Page 1 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
OSAGE WIND, LLC, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 14-CV-704-GKF-JFJ
OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is the United States’ Motion for Reconsideration of the Order of April 14,
2020. That Order denied the United States’ motion to file an amended pleading because the United
States, as trustee of the Osage Mineral Estate, had not appealed U.S. District Judge James R.
Payne’s Judgment of September 30, 2015, a judgment that was adverse to the Osage Mineral
Estate. The United States’ failure to appeal left the Osage Minerals Council, acting on behalf of
the Osage Nation, to shoulder the task of appealing the Judgment and prevailing on appeal.1
Ordinarily, “the inescapable consequence of failure to appeal a judgment within the time allowed
is that the judgment becomes final” as to a party that does not appeal. Piazza v. Aponte Roque,
909 F.2d 35, 39 (2nd Cir. 1990); see also United States v. Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co., Inc., 917
F.2d 654, 662 (1st Cir. 1990) (“Without a timely appeal, the district court’s judgment against [the
non-appealing party] became final”). Because the United States had not appealed, but left that
responsibility to the Osage Minerals Council, this Court concluded that the United States was
1
Following the Tenth Circuit’s decision, defendant Osage Wind, LLC filed a petition for writ of
certiorari, which the Supreme Court denied on January 7, 2019. The Tenth Circuit issued its
mandate on April 29, 2019. On October 28, 2019, the Court Clerk randomly reassigned the case
to the undersigned.
Case 4:14-cv-00704-GKF-JFJ Document 153 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 05/07/20 Page 2 of 3
“barred [by its failure to appeal] from proceeding further in this case.” See Order of April 14, 2020
[Doc. 139].
Around the same time, the Osage Minerals Council sought to file a Complaint in
Intervention, arguing that “the interests of Osage headright holders in the Osage Mineral Estate
diverge from and will not be adequately represented by the United States.” See Motion to
Intervene [Doc. 104, at p. 1]. On April 13, 2020, the Court granted the Osage Minerals Council
leave to intervene.
Although the failure to appeal a judgment ordinarily results in the judgment becoming final
as to a non-appealing party, the circumstances presented here are somewhat out of the ordinary.
Despite the United States’ failure to appeal the previous Judgment, its role as trustee of the Osage
Mineral Estate has not changed, and it retains its fiduciary duties in connection with the Osage
Mineral Estate. Because the Osage Minerals Council prevailed on appeal, the adverse judgment
against the United States, in its role as trustee of Osage Mineral Estate, was reversed in its entirety,
leaving the United States able to fulfill its fiduciary obligations as trustee and pursue its claims
against the defendants. Cf. Daniels v. Gilbreath, 668 F.2d 477, 478 (10th Cir. 1982) (recognizing
that “[o]rdinarily, a non-appealing party cannot gain benefit from a successful appellate decision
reversing a trial judgment rendered against him,” but permitting the non-appealing party to benefit
from an appellate decision when reversal “wipes out all basis for recovery against the nonappealing, as well as against the appealing defendant.”).
The Court notes that the Osage Minerals Council supports the United States in its request
to reconsider the Order of April 14, 2020. The Osage Minerals Council persuasively contends that
the departure of the United States as a party to the action introduces inefficiencies in discovery
and scheduling. This consideration further supports the grant of the motion now before the Court.
2
Case 4:14-cv-00704-GKF-JFJ Document 153 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 05/07/20 Page 3 of 3
WHEREFORE, the Motion for Reconsideration [Doc. 141] is granted. The United States
is hereby restored as plaintiff, in its role as trustee of the Osage Mineral Estate, and the Orders at
Doc.137 and Doc. 139 are vacated. The Court shall address the merits of the Motion to file a
Second Amended Complaint [Doc. 98] by separate order.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 7th day of May, 2020.
3
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?