Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-19-30519/USCOURTS-ca5-19-30519-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
EPI Consultants
Appellee
Oracle Oil, L.L.C.
Appellant

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-30519

In the Matter of: ORACLE OIL, L.L.C.,

Debtor.

ORACLE OIL, L.L.C., 

 Appellant,

versus

EPI CONSULTANTS, A Division of Cudd Pressure Control, Incorporated,

 Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

No. 2:18-CV-3674

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Plaintiff Oracle Oil, L.L.C., solely owned by Robert Brooks, operated an 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 

5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 7, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 19-30519 Document: 00515301742 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/07/2020
No. 19-30519

2

oil well. As debtor in this bankruptcy proceeding, Oracle seeks damages from 

EPI Consultants for alleged breach of contract and negligence in connection

with EPI’s consulting services on the well. Oracle alleges that, because of EPI’s

actions, Oracle suffered expenses and loss of future profits from the well.

EPI avers that Oracle cannot establish that it is entitled to any damages. 

EPI contends that Brooks’s other companies—not Oracle—paid all invoices for 

the well’s expenses. But Oracle claims that Brooks, through oral contracts 

with himself acting on behalf of his companies, directed the payments on the 

understanding that Oracle would be obligated to reimburse the other companies. EPI points out that Louisiana law requires that, in addition to Brooks’s 

testimony, Oracle must present “corroborating evidence” that the contract 

existed; Oracle has provided none.

EPI moved for summary judgment. Concluding that Oracle could not 

establish that it had sustained damages, the district court granted the motion. 

We have examined the briefs, the applicable law, and pertinent parts of the 

record and have heard the oral arguments of counsel. The district court properly granted summary judgment as explained primarily in its comprehensive 

Order and Reasons entered on June 6, 2019. The judgment is AFFIRMED, 

essentially for the reasons set forth in that order. 

Case: 19-30519 Document: 00515301742 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/07/2020