Opinion ID: 165825
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: BP's Same as Fed Lease Obligations

Text: 103 Elliott also argues that because BP admitted it had underpaid its same as fed overriding royalty owners, summary judgment should have been granted in favor of Elliott on its Payment Act claim against BP. Appellees respond that the question of BP's liability under its same as fed leases was not an issue in this case. Appellees contend that only ConocoPhillips' same as fed leases are at issue because only ConocoPhillips asserted a counterclaim and thereafter moved for summary judgment on its compliance with those leases. Even if BP's same as fed leases were at issue, Appellees argue that Elliott's Payment Act claim lacks merit because Elliott affirmatively prevented BP from correcting the payment error. 104 The district court granted summary judgment to ConocoPhillips on its same as fed royalty obligations without any reference to BP's same as fed leases. Dist. Ct. Order No. 1 at 10. In a subsequent order, the district court, without any reference to BP's same as fed leases, rejected Elliott's Payment Act claim because no theories of potential liability remained. 25 Dist. Ct. Order No. 4. Elliott had moved for summary judgment against BP under the Payment Act because of alleged underpayment of royalties on BP's same as fed leases. Elliott filed its motion for summary judgment after members of the class received a letter from BP admitting underpayment. 26 Appellees are correct, however, that BP's same as fed leases were never a part of Elliott's case. 27 105 Generally, failure to set forth in the complaint a theory upon which the plaintiff could recover does not bar a plaintiff from pursuing a claim. Green Country Food Market, Inc. v. Bottling Group, LLC, 371 F.3d 1275, 1279 (10th Cir.2004). The liberalized pleading rules, however, do not permit plaintiffs to wait until the last minute to ascertain and refine the theories on which they intend to build their case. Id. This is particularly true if permitting a plaintiff to change its theory will prejudice the other party in maintaining its defense. Id. In this instance Elliott, in its summary judgment motion, attempted to assert an entirely new factual basis for relief which had not heretofore been a part of the case. 28 The thrust of Elliott's entire case had been Appellees' underpayment of royalties based on the 39% in-kind deduction charged to at the well royalty owners. The letter sent by BP indicates that it was erroneously treating some overriding royalty interest owners under the at the well methodology as opposed to the same as fed methodology. Elliott had never asserted in its complaint that this was a basis for liability and to permit Elliott to make this claim at such a late stage in the proceedings would risk prejudicing BP. 106 The district court properly rejected Elliott's Payment Act claim because it concluded no potentially successful theory of liability remained. One of the theories of potential liability was BP's alleged underpayment of royalties on its same as fed leases. This was not, however, a theory that was ever raised by Elliott prior to its summary judgment motion. The district court thus appropriately denied Elliott's motion for summary judgment on the Payment Act claim. 107