Gaedeke Holdings VII LTD et al v. Thrower et al

Filing 503

ORDER denying 480 Moving Defendants' Joint Motion for Set-Off or Credit (as more fully set out in order). Signed by Honorable Vicki Miles-LaGrange on 1/30/2014. (ks)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
GAEDEKE HOLDINGS VII, LTD, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
DAVID MILLS, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CIV-11-649-M

ORDER
Before the Court is defendants Landon Speed, Jim Ashford, Todd Baker, Baker Petroleum
& Investments, Inc., David Mills, and Mayhem Oil & Gas, Inc.’s (“Moving Defendants”) Joint
Motion for Set-Off or Credit, filed October 18, 2013. On October 25, 2013, plaintiffs filed their
response, and on November 1, 2013, Moving Defendants filed their reply. Based upon the parties’
submissions, the Court makes its determination.
Moving Defendants move the Court to credit plaintiffs’ settlement with OKKI Industries,
L.L.C., OKKI Energy, L.L.C., and Nelson Bolen in the case of Gaedeke Holdings VII, Ltd. v. OKKI
Industries, L.L.C., OKKI Energy, L.L.C. and Nelson Bolen, Case No. CIV-10-331-R (W.D. Okla.)
(the “Settlement”) against any judgment entered in this case against Moving Defendants. Moving
Defendants assert the Settlement and any judgment entered against Moving Defendants in this case
represent common damages for a common injury. Further, Moving Defendants assert that they are
entitled to a credit for the full amount plaintiffs received by or on behalf of the OKKI defendants
because the settlement agreement does not specify what percentage of the settlement fund is
attributable to any particular claim.
It is a fundamental legal principle that an injured party is ordinarily
entitled to only one satisfaction for each injury. When a plaintiff
receives an amount from a settling defendant, therefore, it is normally

applied as a credit against the amount recovered by the plaintiff from
a non-settling defendant, provided both the settlement and the
judgment represent common damages.
U.S. Indus., Inc. v. Touche Ross & Co., 854 F.2d 1223, 1236 (10th Cir. 1988) (internal citation
omitted), overruled by implication on other grounds as recognized by Anixter v. Home-Stake Prod.
Co., 77 F.3d 1215, 1231 (10th Cir. 1996). “The purpose of the rule is to prevent a plaintiff from
receiving double compensation for an injury. Consequently, the rule applies only where the
defendants’ conduct resulted in a single injury.” Id. (internal citations omitted).
By contrast, where two or more defendants are responsible for
separate injuries, an amount received in settlement from one
defendant for one of the injuries may not be used to reduce the
liability of the other defendant for the other injury.
Id. “The critical focus, therefore, must be whether the jury award compensated the plaintiff for the
same injury as the settlements.” Id. at 1237, n.20. Finally, it is the party seeking credit for the
amount received in a settlement that bears the burden of proving “that the damages assessed against
him have in fact and in actuality been previously covered in a prior settlement”. Id. at 1261 (internal
quotations and citation omitted).
Having carefully reviewed the parties’ submissions, the Court finds that Moving Defendants
have not met their burden of proving that the damages assessed against them have in fact and in
actuality been previously covered by the Settlement. Specifically, the Court finds that plaintiffs’
injury compensated by the Settlement is a separate and distinct injury from the injury for which the
jury awarded damages to plaintiffs in the case at bar. The Settlement involved a specific block of
leases in Jackson County, Oklahoma and provided that plaintiffs would receive a certain amount of
the purchase price for these leases and a certain overriding royalty interest in these leases. Moving
Defendants’ leases were largely acquired in Harmon County, Oklahoma – an entirely different block
2

of leases. Further, the Settlement was a “covenant touching and concerning the land,” specifically
tied to the OKKI leases. Settlement at § 20.
Additionally, in the case at bar, plaintiffs sought damages for the lost profits on their sale to
Panther. The settlement agreement was dated May 7, 2010. The Panther sale occurred in December
2010. Thus, any injury resulting from alleged lost profits had not occurred at the time of the
Settlement.
Further, under the Oklahoma Uniform Trade Secrets Act, and as the jury was instructed by
this Court, for their misappropriation of trade secrets claim, plaintiffs could recover both the actual
loss caused by the misappropriation and the unjust enrichment caused by the misappropriation that
is not taken into account in computing actual loss. See Okla. Stat. tit. 78, §88 (A). Thus, plaintiffs’
damages in the case at bar could include Moving Defendants’ unjust enrichment. Since Moving
Defendants were not a party to the Settlement, their unjust enrichment clearly would not be a part
of the Settlement.
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, the Court finds that Moving Defendants are not
entitled to a credit for the Settlement. The Court, therefore, DENIES Moving Defendants’ Joint
Motion for Set-Off or Credit [docket no. 480].
IT IS SO ORDERED this 30th day of January, 2014.

3