Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-15-01434/USCOURTS-ca10-15-01434-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 410
Nature of Suit: Antitrust
Cause of Action: 

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________________

BUCCANEER ENERGY (USA) INC., a 

Nevada corporation, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

SG INTERESTS, I, LTD, a Texas limited 

partnership; SG INTERESTS VII, LTD., a 

Texas limited partnership,

 Defendants - Appellants,

and

GUNNISON ENERGY CORPORATION, 

a Delaware corporation, 

 Defendant.

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

BUCCANEER ENERGY (USA) INC., a 

Nevada corporation,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

GUNNISON ENERGY CORPORATION,

a Delaware corporation,

 Defendant - Appellant,

and

SG INTERESTS, I, LTD, a Texas limited 

partnership; SG INTERESTS VII, LTD., a 

No. 15-1427

(D.C. No. 1:12-CV-01618-RPM)

(D. Colo.)

No. 15-1434

(D.C. No. 1:12-CV-01618-RPM)

(D. Colo.)

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

January 6, 2016

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 15-1434 Document: 01019549887 Date Filed: 01/06/2016 Page: 1 
2

Texas limited partnership,

 Defendants.

_________________________________

ORDER

_________________________________

Before TYMKOVICH, Chief Judge, KELLY, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________

This matter is before the court on Appellant’s Motion to Dismiss Cross Appeals 

(Nos. 15-1427 & 15-1434). At the court’s direction, the defendants filed responses titled 

Defendant-Appellee/Cross-Appellant Gunnison Energy Corp.’s Response to Appellant’s 

Motion to Dismiss Cross Appeals (Nos. 15-1427 & 15-1434) and Defendant SG 

Interests’ Response to Appellant’s Motion to Dismiss Cross Appeals (Nos. 15-1427 & 

15-1434). A reply was also filed, which is titled Plaintiff-Appellant’s Reply Brief in 

Support of Motion to Dismiss Cross Appeals.

Upon careful consideration of the parties’ submissions and the applicable case 

law, we conclude that the appellant’s motion to dismiss the cross appeals should be 

granted. See Jennings v. Stephens, 135 S. Ct. 793, 798-99 (2015). Both cross appeals are 

procedurally inappropriate. The appellees may raise their alternative arguments for 

affirming the district court’s judgment in their answer brief to be filed in the plaintiff’s 

appeal, Case No. 15-1396.

Appellate Case: 15-1434 Document: 01019549887 Date Filed: 01/06/2016 Page: 2 
3

Therefore, Case Nos. 15-1427 and 15-1434 are dismissed.

Entered for the Court

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

by: Lara Smith

 Counsel to the Clerk

Appellate Case: 15-1434 Document: 01019549887 Date Filed: 01/06/2016 Page: 3