Wake Energy, LLC v. Mustang Fuel Corporation

District Court, E.D. Oklahoma·Decided May 30, 2024·No. 6:22-cv-00364·Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

WAKE ENERGY, LLC, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff, Case No. 22-cv-364-RAW-GLJ v.

MUSTANG FUEL CORPORATION and MUSTANG GAS PRODUCTS, LLC,

Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT, CERTIFYING THE CLASS FOR SETTLEMENT PURPOSES, APPROVING FORM AND MANNER OF NOTICE, AND SETTING DATE FOR FINAL FAIRNESS HEARING

This is a class action lawsuit brought by Plaintiff Wake Energy, LLC (“Plaintiff”), on behalf of itself and as a representative of a class of owners (defined below), against Mustang Fuel Corporation and Mustang Gas Products, LLC (“Defendants”) (“Plaintiff” and “Defendants” collectively the “Parties”) for the alleged failure to pay statutory interest on payments made outside the time periods set forth in the Production Revenue Standards Act, 52 Okla. St. § 570.1 et seq. (the “PRSA”) for oil production proceeds from wells in Oklahoma. On May 21, 2024, the Parties executed a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement (the “Settlement Agreement”) finalizing the terms of the Settlement.1 The Settlement Agreement, together with the

1 Capitalized terms not otherwise defined in this Order shall have the meaning ascribed to them in the Settlement Agreement. documents referenced therein and exhibits thereto, set forth the terms and conditions for the proposed Settlement of the Litigation. In accordance with the Settlement

Agreement, Plaintiff now presents the Settlement to the Court for preliminary approval under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. After reviewing the pleadings and Plaintiff’s Motion to Certify the Class for Settlement Purposes, Preliminarily Approve Class Action Settlement, Approve Form and Manner of Notice, and Set Date for Final Fairness Hearing (“Motion for Preliminary Approval”) [Docket No. 50], the Court has preliminarily considered the

Settlement to determine, among other things, whether the Settlement warrants the issuance of notice to the Settlement Class. Upon reviewing the Settlement and the Motion for Preliminary Approval, the undersigned Magistrate finds it should be GRANTED. It is therefore hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED as follows:

1. For purposes of this Order, the Court adopts all defined terms as set forth in the Settlement Agreement unless otherwise defined herein. 2. The Court finds the Settlement Class should be certified at this stage for the purposes of this Settlement, as the Settlement Class meets all certification requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 for a settlement class. The

Settlement Class is certified for settlement purposes only, subject to the Court’s final consideration at the Final Fairness Hearing. In determining whether the requirements of Rule 23 have been satisfied for purposes of certifying the Settlement Class for settlement purposes, the Court has taken into account the fact of settlement and its impact upon the factors required for certification of the Settlement Class. Among other impacts of settlement, the Court need not inquire whether the case, if tried, would

present intractable management problems, as the result of settlement is that there will be no trial. Because this case has been settled at this stage of the proceedings, the Court does not reach, and makes no ruling either way, as to the issue of whether the Settlement Class could have been certified in this case on a contested basis. All non-excluded persons or entities who: (1) received late payments under the PRSA from Defendants (or Defendants’ designee) for oil and gas proceeds from Oklahoma wells, or whose proceeds from Oklahoma wells were sent as unclaimed property to a government entity by Defendants; and (2) whose proceeds did not include the statutory interest required by the PRSA.

Excluded from the Class are: (1) Defendants, their affiliates, predecessors, and employees, officers, and directors; and (2) agencies, departments, or instrumentalities of the United States of America or the State of Oklahoma; (3) any Indian Tribe as defined at 30 U.S.C. § 1702(4) or Indian allotee as defined at 30 U.S.C. § 1702(2); (4) persons or entities that Plaintiff’s counsel may be prohibited from representing under Rule 1.7 of the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct; (5) publicly traded companies; and (6) XTO Energy Inc, SK Nemaha, LLC, Ovintiv Mid- Continent Inc, Hinkle Oil & Gas Inc., White Star Petroleum Holdings, LLC, Continental Resources Inc, Unit Petroleum Company, Staghorn Petroleum II, LLC, Chesapeake Exploration, L.L.C., Canvas Energy LLC, Contango Resources LLC, BCE-Mach III LLC, and Shiloh Oil Corporation.

3. The Court finds, subject to the Court’s final consideration at the Final Fairness Hearing, the above-defined Settlement Class satisfies all prerequisites of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) for purposes of the proposed class settlement: a. Numerosity. Plaintiff has demonstrated “[t]he class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1). The Tenth Circuit has not adopted a set number as presumptively sufficient to meet this burden, and there is “no set formula to determine if the class is so

numerous that it should be so certified.” Trevizo v. Adams, 455 F.3d 1155, 1162 (10th Cir. 2006). Here, the Settlement Class consists of thousands of owners. Therefore, the Court finds the numerosity prerequisite is undoubtedly met. b. Commonality. Plaintiff has also demonstrated “[t]here are questions of law or fact common to the class.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2). c. Typicality. Plaintiff has also shown “[t]he claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class.” Fed.

R. Civ. P. 23(a)(3). d. Adequacy. Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s Counsel have demonstrated “[t]he representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4). In addition, because the Court finds Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s Counsel to be

adequate representatives of the Settlement Class, the Court hereby appoints Plaintiff Wake Energy, LLC, as Class Representative, Plaintiff’s Counsel Randy C. Smith of Randy C. Smith and Associates and Brady L. Smith and Harry “Skeeter” Jordan of Brady Smith Law, PLLC as Co-Lead Class Counsel. 4. The Court also finds the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

23(b)(3) are met: a. Predominance. Class Representative has shown “questions of law or fact common to the members of the class predominate over any questions affecting only individual members.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3).

b. Superiority. Class Representative has also established “that a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

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

Wake Energy, LLC v. Mustang Fuel Corporation, (E.D. Okla. 2024).

Wake Energy, LLC v. Mustang Fuel Corporation (Wake Energy, LLC v. Mustang Fuel Corporation) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Trevizo v. Adams
455 F.3d 1155 (Tenth Circuit, 2006)