Singer Oil Company LLC v. Newfield Exploration Mid-Continent Inc et al

Filing 173

ORDER granting 140 Halliburton's Motion for Attorneys' Fees (as more fully set out). Signed by Honorable Vicki Miles-LaGrange on 6/1/2018. (ks)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
SINGER OIL COMPANY, LLC, an
Oklahoma limited liability company,
Plaintiff,
vs.
NEWFIELD EXPLORATION
MID-CONTINENT, INC., a foreign
corporation domesticated to do business
in Oklahoma; and
HALLIBURTON ENERGY SERVICES,
INC., a foreign corporation domesticated
to do business in Oklahoma,
Defendants.

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

Case No. CIV-16-768-M

ORDER
Before the Court is defendant Halliburton Energy Services, Inc.’s (“Halliburton”) Motion
for Attorneys’ Fees, filed November 29, 2017. On December 7, 2017, plaintiff filed its response,
and on December 14, 2017, Halliburton filed its reply. Based upon the parties’ submissions, the
Court makes its determination.
In this action, plaintiff alleged that one of its vertical wells had been impacted by the
completion of a horizontal well owned and operated by defendant Newfield Exploration MidContinent, Inc. (“Newfield”). Plaintiff alleged that Halliburton was liable to it based upon certain
well services performed by Halliburton for Newfield on the horizontal well. On October 6, 2017,
the Court granted Halliburton’s motion for summary judgment. On November 20, 2017, the Court
entered judgment in favor of Halliburton and against plaintiff. Halliburton now moves the Court
to award it attorneys’ fees in the amount of $77,529.50.

Plaintiff asserts that Halliburton’s motion for attorneys’ fees is untimely. Under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(2)(B), a motion for attorneys’ fees must be filed no later than 14
days after the entry of judgment. Rule 54 defines “judgment” as “any order from which an appeal
lies,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(a), and further states:
When an action presents more than one claim for relief – whether as
a claim, counterclaim, crossclaim, or third-party claim – or when
multiple parties are involved, the court may direct entry of a final
judgment as to one or more, but fewer than all, claims or parties only
if the court expressly determines that there is no just reason for
delay. Otherwise, any order or other decision, however designated,
that adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities
of fewer than all the parties does not end the action as to any of the
claims or parties and may be revised at any time before the entry of
a judgment adjudicating all the claims and all the parties’ rights and
liabilities.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). Because this Court’s October 6, 2017 Order granting summary judgment to
Halliburton adjudicated fewer than all claims and parties, it was not a “judgment.” No “judgment”
was entered in this case until November 20, 2017. Halliburton filed its motion for attorneys’ fees
nine days after judgment was entered. The Court, thus, finds that Halliburton’s motion for
attorneys’ fees is timely.
“The right to recover attorneys’ fees is substantive and therefore determined by state law
in diversity cases.” Pub. Serv. Co. of Colo. v. Cont’l Cas. Co., 26 F.3d 1508, 1520 (10th Cir. 1994)
(internal citation omitted). Under Oklahoma law, attorneys’ fees may be awarded only when
authorized by statute or under the terms of an enforceable contract. See Burrows Constr. Co. v.
Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 2 of Stephens Cty., 704 P.2d 1136, 1137 n.2 (Okla. 1985). Okla. Stat. tit. 12,
§ 940(A) provides:
In any civil action to recover damages for the negligent or willful
injury to property and any other incidental costs related to such
action, the prevailing party shall be allowed reasonable attorney’s

2

fees, court costs and interest to be set by the court and to be taxed
and collected as other costs of the action.
Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 940(A). Further, the “prevailing party” under § 940 “is the party for whom
judgment is rendered.” Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London v. N. Am. Van Lines, 829 P.2d 978,
981 (Okla. 1992).
In its response, plaintiff asserts that because Halliburton jointly made an offer to confess
judgment with Newfield and at trial, plaintiff was awarded damages against Newfield in an amount
greater than the offer to confess judgment, Halliburton is not a prevailing party. Plaintiff, however,
cites to absolutely no case law to support its assertion. Having reviewed the parties’ submissions,
as well as Oklahoma’s statutory and case law, the Court finds that plaintiff’s assertion is without
merit. Even if two defendants make a joint offer to confess judgment, when determining whether
a defendant is a prevailing party, that defendant must be viewed individually. In the case at bar,
judgment was rendered in favor of Halliburton and against plaintiff. See November 20, 2017
Judgment [docket no. 135]. Thus, the Court finds that Halliburton is the prevailing party under §
940 and is entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees.
Regarding an award of attorneys’ fees, the amount of fees must be grounded on the
touchstone of reasonableness. Under Oklahoma law, the reasonableness of attorneys’ fees is
determined using the following Burk1 factors: (1) the time and labor required, (2) the novelty and
difficulty of the questions presented, (3) the skill requisite to perform the legal service properly,
(4) the preclusion of other employment by the attorney due to acceptance of the case, (5) the
customary fee, (6) whether the fee is fixed or contingent, (7) time limitations imposed by the client
or the circumstances, (8) the amount involved and the results obtained, (9) the experience,

1

State ex rel. Burk v. City of Okla. City, 598 P.2d 659 (Okla. 1979).
3

reputation and ability of the attorneys, (10) the “undesirability” of the case, (11) the nature and
length of the professional relationship with the client, and (12) awards in similar cases. See Burk,
598 P.2d at 661. The Oklahoma Supreme Court has further held that “[r]easonable value of
services should be predicated on the standards within the local legal community.” Id. at 663.
Having carefully reviewed the parties’ submissions, and having considered all of the Burk
factors, the Court finds that Halliburton’s requested award of attorneys’ fees is reasonable.
Specifically, the Court finds that the hours expended by Halliburton’s counsel are reasonable and
necessary.

The Court finds that the total hours expended by Halliburton’s counsel are

commensurate with the complexity of the case and the issues involved. The Court would also note
that in this case, nine depositions were taken, multiple experts were involved, multiple attempts at
settlement were tried, and several matters involved briefing. Further, the Court finds that the
requested hourly rates for Halliburton’s counsel are reasonable. Specifically, the Court finds that
the fees sought are consistent with the rates charged by attorneys with similar qualifications and
for similar work in Oklahoma City.
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Halliburton’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees [docket no.
140] and AWARDS Halliburton its attorneys’ fees against plaintiff Singer Oil Company, LLC in
the amount of $76,899.50.2
IT IS SO ORDERED this 1st day of June, 2018.

The amount of attorneys’ fees requested by Halliburton included two hours that counsel
anticipated would be spent in preparation for and attendance at a hearing on the motion for
attorneys’ fees. Since no hearing was necessary, the Court has deducted $630, which is the amount
of fees for the two hours.
2

4