Cub USA Services LLC v. Jetta Operating Company Inc

Filing 47

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying 23 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Cub USA Services LLC. (Ordered by Judge Sidney A Fitzwater on 5/8/2015) (Judge Sidney A Fitzwater)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
CUB USA SERVICES, LLC,

§
§
Plaintiff,
§
§ Civil Action No. 3:14-CV-2508-D
VS.
§
§
JETTA OPERATING COMPANY, INC., §
§
Defendant.
§
MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER
Plaintiff Cub USA Services, LLC (“Cub USA”)—an oilfield services company—
provided water disposal and other services to defendant Jetta Operating Company, Inc.
(“Jetta”)—an oil and gas operating company—under a Master Service Contract (“Contract”).
Cub USA alleges that Jetta has failed to pay for certain of these services, and it sues to
recover on claims for breach of contract, suit on account, unjust enrichment, promissory
estoppel, and quantum meruit, and for attorney’s fees, costs, and interest. Cub USA moves
for partial summary judgment (primarily addressing its claims for breach of contract, suit on
account, and attorney’s fees, costs, and prejudgment interest). Cub USA contends that it is
entitled to partial summary judgment establishing that Jetta is liable for liquidated contract
damages of approximately of $355,598.03, attorney’s fees of $81,721.00, costs of $751.21,
and statutory prejudgment interest. Cub USA maintains that Jetta is liable for the subset of
invoiced charges that it expressly accepted and approved pursuant to the Contract. The court

denies the motion.1
Because Cub USA is moving for summary judgment on claims on which it will have
the burden of proof at trial, it “must establish ‘beyond peradventure all of the essential
elements of the claim[s].’” Bank One, Tex., N.A. v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 878 F. Supp.
943, 962 (N.D. Tex. 1995) (Fitzwater, J.) (quoting Fontenot v. Upjohn Co., 780 F.2d 1190,
1194 (5th Cir. 1986)). This means that Cub USA must demonstrate that there are no genuine
and material fact disputes, and that it is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. See
Martin v. Alamo Cmty. Coll. Dist., 353 F.3d 409, 412 (5th Cir. 2003). “Th[is] court has
noted that the ‘beyond peradventure’ standard is ‘heavy.’” Carolina Cas. Ins. Co. v. Sowell,
603 F.Supp.2d 914, 923-24 (N.D. Tex. 2009) (Fitzwater, C.J.) (quoting Cont’l Cas. Co. v.
St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 2007 WL 2403656, at *10 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 23, 2007)
(Fitzwater, J.)).
It is apparent from the court’s study of the parties’ summary judgment submissions
that there are genuine issues of material fact,2 and that Cub USA has not met its heavy

1

Under § 205(a)(5) of the E-Government Act of 2002 and the definition of “written
opinion” adopted by the Judicial Conference of the United States, this is a “written opinion[]
issued by the court” because it “sets forth a reasoned explanation for [the] court’s decision.”
It has been written, however, primarily for the parties, to decide issues presented in this case,
and not for publication in an official reporter, and should be understood accordingly.
2

“When this court denies rather than grants summary judgment, it typically does not
set out in detail the evidence that creates a genuine issue of material fact.” Valcho v. Dall.
Cnty. Hosp. Dist., 658 F.Supp.2d 802, 812 n.8 (N.D. Tex. 2009) (Fitzwater, C.J.) (citing
Swicegood v. Med. Protective Co., 2003 WL 22234928, at *17 n.25 (N.D. Tex. Sept. 19,
2003) (Fitzwater, J.)).
-2-

burden.3 Accordingly, Cub USA’s February 18, 2015 motion for partial summary judgment
is denied.
SO ORDERED.
May 8, 2015.
_________________________________
SIDNEY A. FITZWATER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3

Jetta objects to parts of the declaration of Ruben Gonzalo. Even if the court
considers the parts to which Jetta objects, the court concludes that Cub USA has not met the
heavy beyond peradventure standard.
-3-