Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-02120/USCOURTS-ca10-92-02120-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Andrew Leo Lopez
Appellant
MISSION RESOURCE PARTNERS, L.P.
Appellee
MISSION RESOURCES, INC.
Appellee
Mission Partners
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

ANDREW LEO LOPEZ, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

) 

) 

) 

) 

FILL D 

United States Coun of Appeal~ Tenth Circuit 

FEB 12 1993 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

v. ) No. 92-2120 

MISSION RESOURCE PARTNERS, L.P.; 

MISSION PARTNERS, a California Limited 

Partnership; MISSION RESOURCES, INC., 

Defendants-Appellees. 

) (D.C. No. CIV 91-199 SC) 

) (D. N.M.) 

) 

) 

) 

} 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before TACHA and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges, and BROWN,** Senior 

District Judge. 

**Honorable Wesley E. Brown, Senior District Judge, United States 

District Court for the District of Kansas, sitting by designation. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

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

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. 

submitted without oral argument. 

The case is therefore ordered 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 92-2120 Document: 010110170355 Date Filed: 02/12/1993 Page: 1 
Plaintiff Andrew Leo Lopez appeals from the district court's 

entry of summary judgment in favor of defendant Mission Resources, 

Inc. II. 1 Mr. Lopez maintains that the district court erred in 

granting summary judgment on his contract, negligence, and Unfair 

Practices Act claims. He also argues the court erred in denying 

his motion to amend his complaint, in filing an amended order nunc 

pro tune, and in granting summary judgment prior to the conclusion 

of all discovery. 

We review the grant of summary judgment de novo. Applied 

Genetics Int'l, Inc. v . First Affiliated Sec . , Inc., 912 F.2d 

1238 , 1241 (10th Cir. 1990) . Judgment is appropriate pursuant to 

Fed . R. Civ. P. 56 (c ) if there are no genuine disputes over 

material issues of fact and one party is entitled to judgment as a 

matter of law. Russillo v. Scarborough, 935 F.2d 1167, 1170 (10th 

Cir. 1991) . In particular, summary judgment is appropriate if the 

defendant establishes plaintiff cannot prove an essential element 

of his claims. Willner v. Budig. 848 F.2d 1032, 1035 (10th Cir. 

1988), cert . denied, 488 U. S . 1031 (1989) . 

We have reviewed each of the issues which Mr . Lopez raises in 

his brief on appeal and have meticulously scrutinized the record. 

Applying the principles set forth above, we hold the district 

court did not err in granting summary judgment for the defendant . 

Furthermore , we hold the court did not commit any procedural 

errors. 

1 The original defendants in this matter were Mission Resource 

Partners, L.P., Mission Partners, and Mission Resources, Inc. 

When those entities dissolved, their assets and liabilities were 

transferred to Mission Resources, Inc. II. 

2 

Appellate Case: 92-2120 Document: 010110170355 Date Filed: 02/12/1993 Page: 2 
-

The judgment of the United States District Court for the 

District of New Mexico is AFFIRMED. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

Entered for the Court 

Deanell Reece Tacha 

Circuit Judge 

3 

Appellate Case: 92-2120 Document: 010110170355 Date Filed: 02/12/1993 Page: 3 
Appellate Case: 92-2120 Document: 010110170355 Date Filed: 02/12/1993 Page: 4