From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Boulter v. Noble Energy, Inc.

United States District Court, District of Colorado
Oct 4, 2021
Civil Action 21-cv-01346-RM-KLM (D. Colo. Oct. 4, 2021)

Opinion

Civil Action 21-cv-01346-RM-KLM

10-04-2021

MIKE BOULTER, BOULTER, LLC, RALPH NIX PRODUCE, INC., and BARCLAY FARMS, LLC, on behalf of themselves and classes of similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs, v. NOBLE ENERGY, INC., and MCGEE OIL & GAS ONSHORE, LP, Defendants.


ORDER

RAYMOND P. MOORE, United States District Judge.

Having considered Plaintiffs' Response (ECF No. 46) to the Court's September 10, 2021 Order to Show Cause (ECF No. 45), the Court dismisses Plaintiffs' claims without prejudice for the reasons below.

On February 17, 2021, United States District Judge William J. Martinez dismissed without prejudice Plaintiffs' claims in Civil Action No. 21-cv-00861-WJM-KLM that were nearly identical to the claims in this case. In their Response, Plaintiffs argue that an intervening change in the law contradicts Judge Martinez's Order. Plaintiffs are mistaken. In Antero Resources Corp. v. Airport Land Partners Ltd., the case on which Plaintiffs rely, a division of the Colorado Court of Appeals concluded that the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission ("COGCC") correctly determined that it lacked jurisdiction over the parties' contractual disputes. But nothing in that decision refutes the central rationale of Judge Martinez's Order, which is that the COGCC determines in the first instance whether it will decline jurisdiction because a bona fide dispute exists.

Plaintiffs' reliance on a statement in a guidebook by the COGCC is similarly misplaced. Again, regardless of whether the COGCC ultimately declines jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' claims, it is the COGCC's responsibility to make that determination in the first instance.

Plaintiffs' contention that the COGCC will not provide a speedy remedy is also unavailing. The fact that other applications have remained pending before the COGCC for months and years does not excuse Plaintiffs from the exhaustion requirement. Plaintiffs cite no authority to the contrary.

Ultimately, Plaintiffs filed this action to get a second bite at matters already determined by Judge Martinez. Rather than appeal, Plaintiffs have chosen to refile their case hoping for a more sympathetic ear. Judge Martinez's Order controls.

Accordingly, the Order to Show Cause is MADE ABSOLUTE, and Plaintiffs' claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Clerk shall CLOSE this case.


Summaries of

Boulter v. Noble Energy, Inc.

United States District Court, District of Colorado
Oct 4, 2021
Civil Action 21-cv-01346-RM-KLM (D. Colo. Oct. 4, 2021)
Case details for

Boulter v. Noble Energy, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:MIKE BOULTER, BOULTER, LLC, RALPH NIX PRODUCE, INC., and BARCLAY FARMS…

Court:United States District Court, District of Colorado

Date published: Oct 4, 2021

Citations

Civil Action 21-cv-01346-RM-KLM (D. Colo. Oct. 4, 2021)

Citing Cases

C & M Res. v. Extraction Oil & Gas, Inc.

A number of judges in this District have held similarly. See Boulter I, 521 F.Supp.3d at 1084, 1086-87 (the…

Boulter v. Noble Energy Inc.

Instead, three months after the district court dismissed their case, Plaintiffs filed a nearly identical…