Case Name: PEMEX EXPLORACION Y PRODUCCION, Individually and as assignee of Age Refining, Inc, Flint Hills Resources, LP and Valero Marketing and Supply Company, Plaintiff-Appellant v. CONOCOPHILLIPS COMPANY; FR Midstream Transport, L.P., formerly known as TexStar Midstream Transport, L.L.C.; Marathon Petroleum Company, L.P., formerly known as Marathon Petroleum Company, L.L.C.; Shell Chemical, L.P.; Shell Trading U.S. Company, "Stusco"; Sunoco Partners Marketing; Terminals, L.P., Defendants-Appellees; Pemex Exploracion Y Produccion, Plaintiff-Appellant v. BASF Corporation; BASF Fina Petrochemicals, L.P.; RGV Energy Partners, L.L.C., Defendants-Appellees; Pemex Exploracion Y Produccion, Plaintiff-Appellant v. F & M Transportation, Inc.; Jeff Kirby; Superior Crude Gathering, Incorporated, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-03-05
Citations: 595 F. App'x 445
Docket Number: Nos. 14-20417, 14-20418
Parties: PEMEX EXPLORACION Y PRODUCCION, Individually and as assignee of Age Refining, Inc, Flint Hills Resources, LP and Valero Marketing and Supply Company, Plaintiff-Appellant v. CONOCOPHILLIPS COMPANY; FR Midstream Transport, L.P., formerly known as TexStar Midstream Transport, L.L.C.; Marathon Petroleum Company, L.P., formerly known as Marathon Petroleum Company, L.L.C.; Shell Chemical, L.P.; Shell Trading U.S. Company, “Stusco”; Sunoco Partners Marketing; Terminals, L.P., Defendants-Appellees; Pemex Exploracion Y Produccion, Plaintiff-Appellant v. BASF Corporation; BASF Fina Petrochemicals, L.P.; RGV Energy Partners, L.L.C., Defendants-Appellees; Pemex Exploracion Y Produccion, Plaintiff-Appellant v. F & M Transportation, Inc.; Jeff Kirby; Superior Crude Gathering, Incorporated, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before SMITH, PRADO, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 595
Pages: 445–445

Head Matter:
PEMEX EXPLORACION Y PRODUCCION, Individually and as assignee of Age Refining, Inc, Flint Hills Resources, LP and Valero Marketing and Supply Company, Plaintiff-Appellant v. CONOCOPHILLIPS COMPANY; FR Midstream Transport, L.P., formerly known as TexStar Midstream Transport, L.L.C.; Marathon Petroleum Company, L.P., formerly known as Marathon Petroleum Company, L.L.C.; Shell Chemical, L.P.; Shell Trading U.S. Company, “Stusco”; Sunoco Partners Marketing; Terminals, L.P., Defendants-Appellees; Pemex Exploracion Y Produccion, Plaintiff-Appellant v. BASF Corporation; BASF Fina Petrochemicals, L.P.; RGV Energy Partners, L.L.C., Defendants-Appellees; Pemex Exploracion Y Produccion, Plaintiff-Appellant v. F & M Transportation, Inc.; Jeff Kirby; Superior Crude Gathering, Incorporated, Defendants-Appellees.
Nos. 14-20417, 14-20418.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
March 5, 2015.
Mark Edward Maney, Maney & Gonzalez-Felix, P.C., Ileana Margarita Blanco, Esq., Christina Elise Ponig, Brett David Solberg, DLA Piper, L.L.P. (US), Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Reagan William Simpson, Esq., Eric P. Chenoweth, Yetter Coleman, L.L.P., George T. Shipley, Laina Reinsmith Miller, Joel Zane Montgomery, Shipley Snell Montgomery, L.L.P., Travis James Sales, William Karl Mata Kroger, Brooke McNabb, Michelle Shamblin Stratton, Aaron Michael Streett, Baker Botts, L.L.P., Payal Kamal Garehgrat, Littler Mendel-son, P.C., Charles Alfred Sturm, Sturm Law, P.L.L.C., Houston, TX, John Michael Quinlan, McElroy, Sullivan, Miller, Weber & Olmstead, L.L.P., Austin, TX, Anthony J. Pruzinsky, Justin Matthew Heilig, Esq., Hill Rivkins, L.L.P., New York, NY, Paul Garrett Kratzig, Kratzig Law Firm, Corpus Christi, TX, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before SMITH, PRADO, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The Court has carefully considered these consolidated appeals in light of the briefs, oral arguments, and pertinent portions of the record — including the extensive and thorough opinions of the district court. For essentially the reasons articulated by the district court, we find no reversible error and AFFIRM.
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.