Gaedeke Holdings VII LTD et al v. Thrower et al

Filing 586

ORDER denying 574 defendant Landon Speed's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (as more fully set out). Signed by Honorable Vicki Miles-LaGrange on 5/11/2015. (ks)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
GAEDEKE HOLDINGS VII, LTD., et al., )
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
vs.
)
)
DAVID MILLS, LANDON SPEED,
)
JIM ASHFORD, BAKER PETROLEUM )
AND INVESTMENTS, INC.,
)
TODD BAKER, MAYHEM OIL & GAS, )
INC., WINDSOR ENERGY GROUP,
)
LLC, and JOHN DOE(S),
)
)
Defendants.
)

Case No. CIV-11-649-M

ORDER
Before the Court is defendant Landon Speed’s (“Speed”) Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment, filed February 17, 2015. On March 10, 2015, plaintiffs filed their response, and on
March 16, 2015, Speed filed his reply. Based upon the parties’ submissions, the Court makes its
determination.
Judgment has been entered in favor of plaintiffs and against Speed as to plaintiffs’
misappropriation of trade secrets claim. A new trial on damages in this case is set on the Court’s
September 2015 trial docket. Speed now moves the Court for partial summary judgment as to
plaintiffs’ remaining theory of recovery for unjust enrichment that is included in their
misappropriation of trade secrets claim.
“Summary judgment is appropriate if the record shows that there is no genuine issue as to
any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The moving
party is entitled to summary judgment where the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational
trier of fact to find for the non-moving party. When applying this standard, [the Court] examines

the record and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the non-moving
party.” 19 Solid Waste Dep’t Mechs. v. City of Albuquerque, 156 F.3d 1068, 1071-72 (10th Cir.
1998) (internal citations and quotations omitted).
“Only disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law
will properly preclude the entry of summary judgment. Furthermore, the non-movant has a burden
of doing more than simply showing there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts.
Rather, the relevant inquiry is whether the evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to require
submission to a jury or whether it is so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law.”
Neustrom v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 156 F.3d 1057, 1066 (10th Cir. 1998) (internal citations and
quotations omitted).
Damages for misappropriation of trade secrets “can include both the actual loss caused by
the misappropriation and the unjust enrichment caused by misappropriation that is not taken into
account in computing actual loss.” Okla. Stat. tit. 78, § 88 (A). Speed contends there is no dispute
as to the fact that he was not enriched by the alleged misappropriation of trade secrets and that he
is, therefore, entitled to judgment in his favor on plaintiffs’ remaining theory of recovery for unjust
enrichment that is included in their misappropriation of trade secrets claim. The Court has carefully
reviewed the parties’ briefs and evidentiary submissions. Viewing the evidence in the light most
favorable to plaintiffs and viewing all reasonable inferences in plaintiffs’ favor, the Court finds
plaintiffs have presented sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether
Speed was enriched by the misappropriation of trade secrets. For example, plaintiffs have presented
evidence that a personal loan of Speed was repaid with the proceeds from the lease sales.

2

Accordingly, the Court finds that Speed is not entitled to summary judgment as to plaintiffs’ theory
of recovery for unjust enrichment that is included in their misappropriation of trade secrets claim.
Therefore, the Court DENIES Speed’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [docket no.
574].
IT IS SO ORDERED this 11th day of May, 2015.

3