BTA Oil Producers v. MDU Resources Group
States Cooperatives, Conoco, Inc.,
Equitable Resources Energy Company,
Exxon Mobil Corporation, Midgard
Energy Company, (formerly known as
Maxus Exploration Company), Sinclair
Oil Corporation, Kerr-McGee Oil & Gas
Onshore, L.P., TBI Exploration, Inc.,
(formerly known as Presidio Exploration,
Inc.), Tipperary Oil & Gas Corporation,
and Tom Brown, Inc., Plaintiffs and Appellants
v.
MDU Resources Group, Inc., (formerly
known as Montana-Dakota Utilities
Company), Williston Basin Interstate
Pipeline Company, Inc., Koch Industries,
Inc., and Koch Hydrocarbons Company, Defendants and Appellees
Judge Allan L. Schmalenberger
| Appellant: | Hardy, Maus & Nordsven, P.C. | |
| Appellee: | Zuger Kirmis & Smith | |
| Appellee: | Fleck, Mather & Strutz | |
| Appellee: | Lawyer not licensed in N.D. | |
| Appellee: | Lawyer not licensed in N.D. | |
| Appellant: | Lawyer not licensed in N.D. | |
| Appellee: | Lawyer not licensed in N.D. |
Listen to recording of oral argument
using RealPlayer Basic,© a free download.
1. Whether the trial court properly decided to enter summary judgment against the Appellants based on Apache, when most of Appellants' claims were not addressed by that case.
2. Whether MDU is judicially estopped from disputing Appellants' unjust enrichment claims, because it successfully asserted a position in Koch v. MDU, which the trial court has expressly determined to be inconsistent with its position here.
3. Whether a party must establish that it was injured in order to assert a claim in unjust enrichment.
4. Whether MDU, Koch, and the Appellants agreed that MDU should escape liability for millions of dollars of admitted breach of contract damages because of the way that they structured their contracts in a "complicated three-party transaction."
5. Whether this Court should establish the precedent that producers of raw materials which sell their production under percentage-of-proceeds contracts are barred from receiving damages attributable to the resale of their products, and that the purchasers of those products in the resales do not have to disgorge 100% of any damages that they caused.
6. Whether the trial court properly granted summary judgment on claims that it did not address in its decisions.
7. Whether the trial court properly determined that Koch cannot be liable for breaching its written commitment to the Appellants to keep them apprised of "major developments" in the Koch v. MDU case as a matter of law.
8. Whether the trial court properly determined, as a matter of law, that Koch cannot be liable for failing to share settlement payments with the Appellants which Koch obtained in lieu of amounts that Koch would have been contractually obligated to pay them.
9. Whether the trial court properly determined that Koch cannot be liable to the Appellants for breaching its agreement to maximize sales to MDU by terminating the contract under which these sales were to be made.
10. Whether the trial court properly determined, as a matter of law, that Koch cannot be liable to the Appellants for failing to implement their Koch contracts in good faith when Koch circumvented those contracts by settling with MDU to Koch's own advantage and to Appellants' detriment.
11. Whether the trial court erred in entering summary judgment on those claims when the Appellants showed specific grounds to impeach Koch's affiant and there is a disputed issue of material fact concerning the claim.
12. Whether the trial court properly entered summary judgment on Appellants' unjust enrichment claims against Koch on the basis that the Appellants have direct contracts with Koch, before the court determined whether those contracts provide "perfect and complete justice."
13. Whether the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on the Appellants' claims for an accounting regarding liquefiable hydrocarbons on the basis that the Appellants had not "identified" which Appellants were seeking an accounting, when Exxon was specified in the Complaint, when the other Appellants were referred to, when the contracts under which the claims were made had been filed, and where Koch had failed to file a Motion for a More Definite Statement or a discovery request for the names.
14. Whether the trial court erred in finding, as a matter of law, that the Appellants could not prove that Koch improperly accounted to them for liquefiable hydrocarbons, when Koch committed acts which violate its contracts with the Appellants, such as deducting from its payments to them as a "cost" an interaffiliate profit margin, whiting out the word "margin" when caught by North Dakota officials, writing over it a different description, yet still showing it as a "margin" on its own records.
15. Whether the trial court erroneously determined that Contract MCK-1590 is a contract for the sale of goods governed by the UCC and subject to a four-year limitations period, when the parties themselves characterized that agreement as a "Gas Processing Agreement," and the only case which addresses whether a "Gas Processing Agreement" is governed by the UCC holds that it is not.
16. Whether In the Interest of W.M.V. is good law.
17. Whether the trial court correctly determined that Exxon did not assert its treating fee claim against Koch when it filed its Complaint with its Motion to Intervene, but when the Appellants subsequently filed their First Amended Complaint containing identical language.
18. Whether the trial court correctly denied Appellants' Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint under the liberalized standards established by this Court, where the trial court erroneously determined that the amendments would have been futile and would have prejudiced the Appellees.
Appellee's Statement of the Issues:
.The District Court properly entered summary judgment on the producers' breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims against Koch
a. The producers could not rely on allegations in pleadings in response to a summary judgment motion.
b. Koch was under no contractual obligation to advise the producers of "major developments" in Koch v. MDU, and the producers were not damaged by any absence of notice from Koch.
c. The producers proved no contractual right to any portion of the MDU settlement proceeds.
d. There is no evidence to support a claim for breach of a duty of good faith and fair dealing.
e. The producers have no unjust enrichment claim against Koch.
The District Court properly granted Koch's motion for summary judgment on the Liquefiable Hydrocarbons claim.
The District Court correctly applied the UCC four-year statute of limitations to Exxon's "treating fee" claim.
Motion to Amend the Pleadings.
Appellee's Statement of the Issues:
I. Judicial Estoppel Does Not Bar MDU/WBI From Disputing BTA's Unjust Enrichment and Implied Trust Claims.
II. The District Court Properly Granted Summary Judgment on BTA's Unjust Enrichment and Implied Trust Claims.
A. Apache is Consistent with Principles of Restitution.
B. Apache is Consistent with North Dakota Precedent.
C. BTA did not "participate" in transactions between Koch and WBI.
D. The Apache Decision is Not Contrary To Klein.
E. It is Not Economically Unfair to Affirm Summary.
Judgment.
F. Apache is Not Bad Precedent.
III. The District Court Correctly Denied BTA's Motion to File a Second Amended Complaint.
Add Docket 20010122 RSS