MC Oil & Gas, LLC v. Ultra Res., Inc.
Decision Date | 12 November 2015 |
Docket Number | Case No. 1:15–cv–0038–DN. |
Citation | 145 F.Supp.3d 1066 |
Parties | MC OIL AND GAS, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company, Plaintiff, v. ULTRA RESOURCES, INC., a Wyoming corporation, UPL Three Rivers Holdings, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, and Axia Energy, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Utah |
Stephen J. Trayner, Stuart H. Schultz, Alan R. Houston, Paul W. Hess, Strong & Hanni, Salt Lake City, UT, for Plaintiff.
Brent O. Hatch, Phillip J. Russell, Shaunda L. McNeill, Hatch James & Dodge, Tracy H. Fowler, Amber M. Mettler, Mark O. Morris, Snell & Wilmer, Salt Lake City, UT, for Defendants.
, District Judge.
Defendants Ultra Resources, Inc. (“Ultra”), UPL Three Rivers Holdings, LLC (“UPL”), and Axia Energy, LLC (“Axia”) (collectively “Defendants”) moved1 for partial summary judgment (“Motion”) on part of the third cause of action brought by Plaintiff MC Oil and Gas, LLC (“MC Oil”).2 Specifically, the Motion seeks judgment in Defendants' favor to the extent that MC Oil alleges breach of the “first Right of Offer.” The parties' memoranda and supporting documentation have been carefully reviewed. For the reasons set forth below, Defendants' Motion is GRANTED.
MC Oil buys and re-sells wax crude oil from oil producers in the Uintah Basin in Utah. Axia began producing wax crude oil in the Uintah Basin in late 2011. On April 24, 2013, MC Oil and Axia entered into an agreement (the “Purchase Agreement”) covering the sale and delivery by Axia, and the purchase and receipt by MC Oil, of crude oil under the terms and conditions specified in the Purchase Agreement.3 On or about October 1, 2013, pursuant to an Assignment, Bill of Sale, and Conveyance (the “Axia to UPL Assignment”), Axia sold certain of its oil and gas properties in the Uinta Basin to UPL.4
On January 13, 2015, Ultra communicated to MC Oil that, “[i]n light of the dramatic recent drop in oil prices, effective March 1, 2015, we do not plan to deliver further barrels for MC Oil under the April 24, 2013 agreement between MC Oil and Axia Energy.” Ultra discontinued delivering and selling crude oil to Plaintiff on March 1, 2015.
MC Oil commenced this lawsuit on February 24, 2015,5 asserting, among other things, breach of the Purchase Agreement. MC Oil's breach allegation is based upon Paragraph 2 of the Purchase Agreement. That paragraph provides in relevant part:
Quantity and Quality: MC shall guarantee a base minimum of 1,000 barrels per day. Axia and MC agree to meet from time to time and discuss potential volume increases under this Agreement. Allowing Axia the first Right of Refusal on additional volumes that MC procures at the local Salt Lake City refineries. Likewise Axia agrees to allow MC the first Right of Offer on additional volumes that Axia produces in the Uintah Basin. If such increases are agreed upon, this Agreement will be amended to reflect the volume change and any new pricing negotiated.
MC Oil alleges that the Purchase Agreement was breached in two respects. First, Defendants “breached the terms of the [Purchase] Agreement by failing and/or refusing to sell and deliver to MC Oil a base minimum of 1,000 barrels of wax crude oil per day under the terms of the [Purchase] Agreement.”6 Second, Defendants “breached the terms of the [Purchase] Agreement by failing and/or refusing to acknowledge, extend, and honor the ROFO [Right of First Offer] in favor of MC Oil for the right to purchase and receive additional volumes of wax crude oil produced by ... [Defendants] in the Uintah Basin above the base minimum of 1,000 barrels of crude oil per day.”7
The present Motion is directed only against MC's second breach claim. Defendants argue that summary judgment is appropriate on MC Oil's claim for breach of the “first Right of Offer” (“FROO”) because the FROO is an unenforceable agreement to negotiate.
“The court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”8 When analyzing a motion for summary judgment, the court must “view the evidence and draw all reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment.”9 However, “the nonmoving party must present more than a scintilla of evidence in favor of his position.”10 A dispute is genuine only “if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.”11
The parties have each offered a single material fact. The two facts are undisputed.
1. The Purchase Agreement contains the following provision regarding the “first Right of Refusal” and “first Right of Offer”:
Axia and MC agree to meet from time to time and discuss potential volume increases under this Agreement. Allowing Axia the first Right of Refusal on additional volumes that MC procures at the local Salt Lake City refineries. Likewise Axia agrees to allow MC the first Right of Offer on additional volumes that Axia produces in the Uintah Basin. If such increases are agreed upon, this Agreement shall be amended to reflect the volume change and any new pricing negotiated.12
2. After MC Oil and Axia entered into the Agreement, Axia and its successor-in-interest, Ultra, produced volumes in excess of 1,000 BOPD from their properties in the Uintah Basin and sold those volumes to third parties without first offering to sell them to MC Oil.13
MC Oil, in a footnote, states that it has 14 For the reasons discussed, MC Oil's additional facts do not affect the legal analysis below.
MC Oil concludes that “[b]ecause rights of first offer are frequently held to be enforceable even when they do not contain an explicit purchase price, and because the FROO provision contains a sufficiently...
To continue reading
Request your trial