Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-86-02536/USCOURTS-ca10-86-02536-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

I. 

PUBLISH 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

OtC 2 3 1989 ! .. __ 

ROBERT L. HOECKER. 

ROBERT E. LECK, JOHNNIE V. STEELE, 

and KENNETH E. BRANDT, 

Plaintiffs-Appellants, 

v. 

CONTINENTAL OIL COMPANY, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

} 

} 

) 

} 

) 

} 

No. 86-2536 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STAT~S DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA. 

(~.c. No. 85~2776-BT) 

Submitted on the briefs: 

Clerk 

John T. Edwards and Henry J. 

Thompson & Edwards, Oklahoma 

Hood of Monnet, Hayes, Bullis, 

City, Oklahoma, . for Plaintiffs-

_Appellants. 

s. Paul Hammons of Andrews., Davis, Legg, Bixler, Milsten & Murrah, 

Oklahoma City,·Oklahoma, for Defendant-Appellee. 

8~fore BALDOCK, BRORBYi Circuit Judges, and BURCIAGA,* District 

j ltdge. 

*'l't1e ·Honorable Juan G. Burciaga, United States District Judge for, 

tn~ District of New Mexico, iitting by designa~ion. 

PEK CURI AM .. 

Appellate Case: 86-2536 Document: 010110195295 Date Filed: 12/28/1989 Page: 1 
( After exa~ining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed~ R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argume-nt. 

Pl~intiffs appealed from an order of the district court 

dismissing this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. ·A 

r~citation of the facts.and procedural history·· can be found in 

LeLk v. Continental Oil Co.; P.2d , No. 72,054, slip op. 

cit: ~-3 (Okla. filed Nov. 28, 1989). 

Inasmuch as this action presented issues· arising out of 

.Oklahoma law, we certified the followirig ques~ion of law to the 

Oklahoma Supreme Court. See Okla. Stat. tit .. 20, §§ 1601-1612 

(1,1nahoma Uniform Certification of Questions of Law Act). 

Does the distri~t court have subje6t matter jurisdiction 

to hear a~d- decide ~n action for damages brought by 

mineral interest owners against the owner and operator 

of an oil and gas lease when the mineral interest owners 

allege (1) breac~ of contract by the operator for 

causing drainage of the oil and gas under their property 

by another oil and gas ·well on adjacent property also 

operated by the operator;. (2) violation of fiduciary 

duties by the operator for failing to protect their 

correlative rights; and (3) misrepresentations by the 

operator to the Oklahoma Corporation Commission during a 

hearing on the a~plication of the mineral interest 

owrers to· restrict the allowable production from the 

other oil and gas well? · 

In a well-reasoned opinion, the details 6f which we will not set 

-- forth here, the Oklahoma Supreme Court answered in the affirmative 

tor parts one and two and in the negative for part three. Leck, 

P.2d 

2 

Appellate Case: 86-2536 Document: 010110195295 Date Filed: 12/28/1989 Page: 2 
Thus,· based on the Oklahoma Supreme Court's opinion, we 

cc11clude the district court erred in determining it did not have 

suoject matter jurisdiction to resolve the issues regarding breach 

of cont·ract and violation of fiduciary d~ties. In addition, we 

conclude the district c~urt correctly determined it did not have 

subject matter jurisdiction to resolve the issue regarding the 

misrepresentations. 

The judgment of the United States District Court for the 

We~l.~(11 District of Oklahoma is AFFIRMED as to the 

Llet0rmination of the misrepresentation issue 

jurisdictional 

and REVERSED and 

KEMANDED as to the j~risdictional determinations regarding breach 

ot contract and violation of fiduciary duties. 

--

3 

Appellate Case: 86-2536 Document: 010110195295 Date Filed: 12/28/1989 Page: 3