ConocoPhillips Company v. Vaquillas Unproven Minerals, LTD.

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedFebruary 10, 2015
Docket04-15-00066-CV
StatusPublished

This text of ConocoPhillips Company v. Vaquillas Unproven Minerals, LTD. (ConocoPhillips Company v. Vaquillas Unproven Minerals, LTD.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
ConocoPhillips Company v. Vaquillas Unproven Minerals, LTD., (Tex. Ct. App. 2015).

Opinion

ACCEPTED 04-15-00066-CV FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 2/10/2015 1:57:24 PM KEITH HOTTLE CLERK 04-15-00066-CV No. _______________

In the Court of Appeals 4th COURT FILED IN OF APPEALS SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS for the Fourth Judicial District of Texas 02/10/2015 1:57:24 PM

San Antonio, Texas KEITH E. HOTTLE Clerk

CONOCOPHILLIPS COMPANY, Petitioner, V.

VAQUILLAS UNPROVEN MINERALS, LTD., Respondent.

From Cause No. 2014 CVQ000 438 D4 406th Judicial District Court, Webb County, Texas Honorable Oscar J. Hale, Jr., Presiding Judge

Unopposed Petition for Permission to Appeal Adolfo Campero Michael V. Powell State Bar No. 00793454 State Bar No. 16204400 Email: acampero@camperolaw.com Email: mpowell@lockelord.com Campero & Associates, P.C. Cynthia K. Timms 315 Calle Del Norte, Suite 207 State Bar No. 11161450 Laredo, Texas 78041 Email: ctimms@lockelord.com Tel: 956-796-0330 Elizabeth L. Tiblets Fax: 956-796-0399 State Bar No. 24066194 Email: etiblets@lockelord.com Locke Lord LLP 2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 2200 Dallas, Texas 75201-6776 Tel: 214-740-8520 Fax: 214-740-8800

ATTORNEYS FOR PETITIONER CONOCOPHILLIPS COMPANY IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL

Petitioner: Counsel for Petitioners: ConocoPhillips Company Michael V. Powell State Bar No. 16204400 Email: mpowell@lockelord.com Cynthia K. Timms State Bar No. 11161450 Email: ctimms@lockelord.com Elizabeth L. Tiblets State Bar No. 24066194 Email: etiblets@lockelord.com Locke Lord LLP 2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 2200 Dallas, Texas 75201-6776 Tel: 214-740-8520 Fax: 214-740-8800

Adolfo Campero State Bar No. 00793454 Email: acampero@camperolaw.com Campero & Associates, P.C. 315 Calle Del Norte, Suite 207 Laredo, Texas 78041 Tel: 956-796-0330 Fax: 956-796-0399 Respondent: Counsel for Respondent: Vaquillas Unproven Minerals, Ltd. Gregg Owens State Bar No. 15383500 Email: gregg.owens@haysowens.com Robert G. Hargrove State Bar No. 09303300 Email: rob.hargrove@haysowens.com Hays & Owens L.L.P. 807 Brazos Street, Suite 500 Austin, Texas 78701 Tel: 512-472-3993 Fax: 512-472-3883

i A. Michael Jung State Bar No. 11054600 Email: michael.jung@strasburger.com Strasburger & Price, LLP 901 Main Street, Suite 4400 Dallas, Texas 75202-3794 Tel: 214-651-4724 Fax: 214-651-4330 (main) Fax: 214-659-4022 (direct)

Armando X. Lopez State Bar No. 12562400 Email: mandox@rio.bravo.net Law Offices of Armando X. Lopez 1510 Calle Del Norte, Suite 16 Laredo, Texas 78041 Tel: 956-726-0722 Fax: 956-726-6049

Raul Leal State Bar No. 24032657 Email: rleal@rl-lawfirm.com Raul Leal Incorporated 5810 San Bernardo, Suite 390 Laredo, Texas 78041 Tel: 956-727-0039 Fax: 956-727-0369

ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL .............................................................i

TABLE OF CONTENTS ......................................................................................... iii

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES......................................................................................v

INFORMATION REQUIRED BY TEXAS RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 25.1(d) ................................................vi

STATEMENT OF THE CASE ............................................................................... vii

ISSUE PRESENTED ............................................................................................. viii

STATEMENT OF FACTS ........................................................................................1

A. The Two Leases Contain Retained Acreage Clauses............................ 1

B. The Railroad Commission Adopted Field Rules. ................................. 3

C. This Action. ...........................................................................................4

ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES ........................................................................ 5

A. The proper interpretation of the leases is a “controlling question of law.”....................................................................................5

B. There is a substantial ground for a difference of opinion. .................... 7

C. An immediate appeal from the Amended Order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation.................................................................................................8

PRAYER ....................................................................................................................9

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE.......................................................................11

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE .......................................................................11

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ................................................................................12

iii APPENDIX:

Amended Order On Cross-Motions For Summary Judgment ..........................TAB 1

Defendant's Motion For Summary Judgment ...................................................TAB 2

Plaintiff's Cross-Motion For Partial Summary Judgment And Response To Defendant's Motion For Summary Judgment ........................TAB 3

Plaintiff's Original Petition ...............................................................................TAB 4

iv INDEX OF AUTHORITIES Page(s)

CASES Johnson v. Burken, 930 F.2d 1202 (7th Cir. 1991) .............................................................................. 6 Jones v. Killingsworth, 403 S.W.2d 325 (Tex. 1965) ................................................................................ 7

RULES AND STATUTES 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) ...................................................................................................5 TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 51.014(Vernon Supp. 2014).................. vi, vii, 5, 6 Tex. R. of App. P. 25.1 .............................................................................................vi

Tex. R. of App. P. 28.3 .............................................................................................vi Tex. R. of App. P. 28.4 ........................................................................................... vii

LAW REVIEWS AND TREATISES 16 Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Edward H. Cooper, Federal Practice & Procedure § 3930 (3d ed. 2012) .......................................................................6, 7 19 James Wm. Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice & Procedure §203.31[3] (3d ed. 2014) .........................................................................................................8

v TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS:

ConocoPhillips Company (“ConocoPhillips”), Defendant below, files this

Unopposed Petition for Permission to Appeal regarding an order signed on January

27, 2015 on the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment. Because the

underlying lawsuit was filed after September 1, 2011, this appeal is governed by

the 2011 amended version of Section 51.014(d)-(f) of the Texas Civil Practice and

Remedies Code and by Rule 28.3 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.

Respondent Vaquillas Unproven Minerals, Ltd. (“Vaquillas”), Plaintiff

below, did not oppose Petitioners’ Motion for Interlocutory Appeal filed in the

district court and has agreed to the relief requested in this Petition.

INFORMATION REQUIRED BY TEXAS RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 25.1(d) In accordance with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 28.3(e)(1),

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Donald J. Johnson v. Patrick H. Burken
930 F.2d 1202 (Seventh Circuit, 1991)
American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance Co. v. Schaefer
124 S.W.3d 154 (Texas Supreme Court, 2003)
Rogers v. Ricane Enterprises, Inc.
772 S.W.2d 76 (Texas Supreme Court, 1989)
RAILROAD COM'N OF TEXAS v. WBD Oil & Gas
104 S.W.3d 69 (Texas Supreme Court, 2003)
Anadarko Petroleum Corp. v. Thompson
94 S.W.3d 550 (Texas Supreme Court, 2003)
Humphrey v. Seale
716 S.W.2d 620 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1986)
Houston Lighting & Power Co. v. Railroad Commission
529 S.W.2d 763 (Texas Supreme Court, 1975)
Natural Gas Pipeline Co. of America v. Pool
124 S.W.3d 188 (Texas Supreme Court, 2003)
EOG Resources, Inc. v. Killam Oil Co., Ltd.
239 S.W.3d 293 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2007)
Sun Oil Co. (Delaware) v. Madeley
626 S.W.2d 726 (Texas Supreme Court, 1981)
Fox v. Thoreson
398 S.W.2d 88 (Texas Supreme Court, 1966)
Amarillo Oil Co. v. Energy-Agri Products, Inc.
794 S.W.2d 20 (Texas Supreme Court, 1990)
Shown v. Getty Oil Co.
645 S.W.2d 555 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1982)
Heritage Resources, Inc. v. NationsBank
939 S.W.2d 118 (Texas Supreme Court, 1997)
Virgil Mathews v. Sun Oil Co.
425 S.W.2d 330 (Texas Supreme Court, 1968)
Jones v. Killingsworth
403 S.W.2d 325 (Texas Supreme Court, 1965)
State v. Bilbo
392 S.W.2d 121 (Texas Supreme Court, 1965)
Knight v. Chicago Corp.
188 S.W.2d 564 (Texas Supreme Court, 1945)
Rowley v. Braly
286 S.W. 241 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1926)
Freeman v. Magnolia Petroleum Co.
171 S.W.2d 339 (Texas Supreme Court, 1943)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
ConocoPhillips Company v. Vaquillas Unproven Minerals, LTD., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/conocophillips-company-v-vaquillas-unproven-minerals-ltd-texapp-2015.