Filed: Jul. 06, 1995
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS for the Fifth Circuit _ No. 95-40146 Summary Calendar _ HORACE NORMAN, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellants, VERSUS APACHE CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas (CA-G-91-378) _ (July 20, 1995) Before GARWOOD, JOLLY and DUHÉ, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:1 The owners of working interests in mineral leases brought an action against Apache Corporation, the unit operator, alleging breach of contract, f
Summary: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS for the Fifth Circuit _ No. 95-40146 Summary Calendar _ HORACE NORMAN, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellants, VERSUS APACHE CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas (CA-G-91-378) _ (July 20, 1995) Before GARWOOD, JOLLY and DUHÉ, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:1 The owners of working interests in mineral leases brought an action against Apache Corporation, the unit operator, alleging breach of contract, fr..
More
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
for the Fifth Circuit
_____________________________________
No. 95-40146
Summary Calendar
_____________________________________
HORACE NORMAN, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
VERSUS
APACHE CORPORATION,
Defendant-Appellee.
______________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
(CA-G-91-378)
______________________________________________________
(July 20, 1995)
Before GARWOOD, JOLLY and DUHÉ, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:1
The owners of working interests in mineral leases brought an
action against Apache Corporation, the unit operator, alleging
breach of contract, fraud, and breach of fiduciary duty. The
Defendant operator had halted production of the unit well in mid-
July 1990, causing the leases maintained by unit production to
terminate. In earlier proceedings, this Court affirmed dismissal
of the fraud and fiduciary duty claims and reversed the district
court's grant of summary judgment on the breach of contract claim.
1
Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions that
have no precedential value and merely decide particular cases on
the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes needless
expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession."
Pursuant to that Rule, the Court has determined that this opinion
should not be published.
Norman v. Apache Corp.,
19 F.3d 1017 (5th Cir. 1990). This Court
found genuine issues of material fact exist regarding whether
Apache misrepresented to the owners that it was continuing to
produce the well from July through November 1990, and whether
Apache breached its duty to act as a prudent operator by failing to
take reasonable steps to prevent the loss of the leases.
Id. at
1031. On remand the district court again granted summary judgment
to Defendants. We reverse.
The district court found the remanded issues moot, holding as
a matter of law that Plaintiffs had been made whole and could not
maintain their cause of action for damages:
Even if every allegation against the Defendant is true,
such acts were cured when the Defendant reacquired and
assigned the leases to the Plaintiffs. At that time, the
status quo was duly restored by re-establishing the
Plaintiffs' opportunity to drill.
Once Defendants reacquired and assigned the leases to
the Plaintiffs, the Plaintiffs were made whole and
cannot, as a matter of law, maintain a cause of action
against the Defendant for consequential damages relating
to lost leases since the leases were no longer "lost."
1 Rawle 707. The record precludes the summary judgment finding that
Plaintiffs "were made whole" upon Defendant's reacquisition and
assignment of leases to Plaintiffs. The record reflects that the
new leases differ in material respects from the lost leases. See,
e.g., Sbarbaro dep. at 30 (noting that some interests included in
the lost leases remained unleased under the new leases); aff. of
Jack Finkelstein at 4 (noting higher royalty burden and lack of
warranty of title on the new leases as contrasted with the lost
leases). Such evidence precludes the summary judgment findings
2
that Plaintiffs were made whole and that "the status quo was duly
restored." Finding the summary judgment evidence bearing on these
material facts disputed, we reverse the summary judgment and
remand.
We decline Appellants' invitation to address the issue of the
proper measure of damages, a question to be addressed, if
appropriate, in the first instance by the district court.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
3