Ritter, Laber & Assoc. v. Koch Oil

20030347

Ritter, Laber and Associates, Inc.;
Elizabeth Cantarine, Personal
Representative of the Estate of
Eugene A. Burdick; and Russell L.
Kiker, Plaintiffs and Appellants
v.
Koch Oil, Inc., a division of Koch
Industries, Inc., Defendant and Appellee

Appeal from:

District Court, Southwest Judicial District, Stark County
Judge Zane Anderson

Nature of Action:

Oil, Gas and Minerals

Counsel:

Appellant:		Serkland Law Firm
Appellant:		Kaiser Law Firm
Appellant:		Lawyer not licensed in N.D.
Appellee:		Fleck, Mather & Strutz
Appellee:		Lawyer not licensed in N.D.
Appellee:		Lawyer not licensed in N.D.
Appellee:		Lawyer not licensed in N.D.
Appellee:		Lawyer not licensed in N.D.

Term:

03/2004 Argument: 03/10/2004 01:30pm

ND cite:

2004 ND 117

NW cite:

680 N.W.2d 634

Listen to recording of oral argument
using RealPlayer Basic,^© a free download.

Issues:

Appellant's Statement of the Issues:
1. This class action includes owners of royalty and leasehold interests in North Dakota oil wells who agreed Koch Oil Company could remove and purchase oil. Do material questions of law and fact exist on the owners' cause of action for conversion when it is undisputed that Koch possessed more oil than it reported to the owners and that Koch never paid for the excess oil?
The district court held no because title passed to Koch upon removal of the oil.
2. Some owners contracted directly with Koch; other owners leased their interests to a producer, who then contracted directly with Koch. Do material questions of law and fact arise on owners' claim for unjust enrichment because Koch possessed more oil than it reported to the owners, and Koch never paid for the excess oil, but instead retained the full amount received from the subsequent sale of the oil?
The district court held that no unjust enrichment claim arises when there is an express contract between the parties.
3. Did the district court err in granting summary judgment on the owners' request for an accounting based on the dismissal of other claims for conversion and unjust enrichment?
The district court held that without other claims in conversion and unjust enrichment, the class was not entitled to seek an accounting.
4. Did the district court abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend the complaint to include a cause of action for breach of contract where the court did not find Koch was prejudiced, Koch included contract defenses in its answer to the complaint, and the owners previously declined to assert a contract claim because of strategic concerns?
The district court denied leave to amend.

Add Docket 20030347 RSS

Docket entries:

1	12/04/2003	NOTICE OF APPEAL: 12/01/2003
2	12/04/2003	ORDER FOR TRANSCRIPT: 12/01/2003
3	12/04/2003	MOT. EXT/TIME APPELLANT BRIEF (sua sponte)
4	12/04/2003	ACTION BY CLERK (sua sponte). Granted: 01/10/2004
5	12/04/2003	DISK - TRA (7-14-03) (e-filed) (Transcript is part of ROA)
6	12/04/2003	DISK - TRA (9-8-03) (e-filed) (transcript is part of ROA)
7	12/11/2003	Supplmental Affidavit of Gary J. Gordon (Rule 11.1)
8	01/05/2004	RECORD ON APPEAL (13 vols.) & Separates, which include 7 vols. of Transcripts & Video Tape
9	01/09/2004	APPELLANT BRIEF
10	01/09/2004	APPELLANT APPENDIX
11	01/16/2004	Copies of Judgment filed 10-13-03 for ATA
12	01/21/2004	Affidavits of Deborah A. Ellingboe, Charles F. Webber, Jerry W. Snider, & Aaron Van Oort (Rule 11.1
13	01/21/2004	Motion for Permission to Appear as Counsel (To allow Aaron Van Oort to appear)
14	01/21/2004	ACTION BY CLERK (Mot/to appear). Granted
15	01/23/2004	DISK - (e-filed) (corrected ATB)
16	02/11/2004	APPELLEE BRIEF
17	02/11/2004	APPELLEE APPENDIX
18	02/12/2004	DISK - AEB
19	02/24/2004	REPLY BRIEF
20	02/25/2004	DISK - RYB
21	03/10/2004	APPEARANCES: Ronald H. McLean and Gary J. Gordon; Charles F. Webber and John W. Morrison
22	03/10/2004	ARGUED: McLean and Gordon; Webber (Volume Y, Page 215)
23	03/10/2004	ORAL ARGUMENT WEBCAST
24	06/03/2004	DISPOSITION (and remanded): AFFIRMED/PT, REVERSED/PT
25	06/03/2004	UNANIMOUS OPINION: Sandstrom, Dale V.
26	06/03/2004	At the direction of the Court no costs will be taxed on this appeal
27	06/08/2004	Judgment Mailed to Parties
28	07/02/2004	MANDATE
29	07/09/2004	RECEIPT SIGNED BY DISTRICT COURT CLERK'S OFFICE
30	05/20/2011	EXPUNGED - Nonpermanent record items destroyed

Generated from Supreme Court Docket on 05/24/2013