Court Opinion

ID: 9474802
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 05:09:10.909183+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:44:20.576043
License: Public Domain

OPINION ON REHEARING
PER CURIAM:
Appellant Great American Exploration Corporation (Great American) now brings to the attention of the Court a recent decision of the Court, Sonat Exploration Co. v. Mann, 785 F.2d 1232 (5th Cir.1986), and argues that Mann controls the result in the instant case. We disagree.
In Mann, a Mississippi diversity case, the plaintiff operator claimed that the defendant had agreed to pay a percentage of the drilling costs. The plaintiff relied on an Authorization for Expenditure (AFE) signed by the defendant as evidence that an agreement existed. The district court found that the AFE did not prove that an agreement existed and we affirmed. Our case is distinguishable. In the instant case the district court found, based on the testimony at trial, that the parties orally agreed to share the drilling costs and that equitable estoppel prevented Great American from asserting that the oral agreement between the parties was unenforceable for failure to be in writing. We concluded, based on Louisiana law, that a drilling contract was personal in nature and therefore did not have to be in writing. We then affirmed the district court's factual findings on the elements of an equitable estoppel claim. The two cases are distinguishable based on the facts that the district court relied on in concluding that an agreement existed; therefore, Mann does not control the result in the instant case.
The Petition for Rehearing is DENIED and no member of this panel nor Judge in regular active service on the Court having requested that the Court be polled on rehearing en banc, (Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and Local Rule 35) the Suggestion for Rehearing En Banc is DENIED.