Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 11-00854
09-19-2012
MAGNOLIA POINT MINERALS, LLC v. CHESAPEAKE LOUISIANA, LP AND PXP LOUISIANA L.L.C.
JUDGE S. MAURICE HICKS, JR.
MAGISTRATE JUDGE HORNSBY
ORDER
Before the Court is plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration (Record Document 56) and Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration (Record Document 58). The plaintiff Magnolia's motions and supplemental briefings have raised several issues that deserve detailed consideration by this court.
Accordingly, as a matter of judicial efficiency, and in consideration of the law and facts cited by Magnolia, Magnolia's motion to reconsider this courts original ruling on the lease and exhibit language (Record Document 56) and motion for leave to file supplemental motion (Record Document 58) are hereby GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The motions are granted to the extent that the Memorandum Ruling (Record Document 52) and Order (Record Document 53) are VACATED and WITHDRAWN. However, the motions are denied as to plaintiff's request to enter judgment in its favor. Due to the Court's decision to vacate and withdraw its prior ruling, the cross-motions for summary judgment are now considered before the court as if no prior ruling had been issued. Therefore, the summary judgment record in this case is hereby REOPENED, and the Court considers arguments raised in the supplemental briefing to be part of such record.
Whether Chesapeake has taken positions in other courts inconsistent with its position in this court raises questions that must now be addressed at this stage of the proceedings. Additionally, the parties did not refer, either in initial briefing or at oral argument, to a specific rule of Louisiana contract interpretation found in Kuhn v. Stan A. Plauche Real Estate Co., 249 La. 85, 185, So.2d 210 (LA 1966), as recently applied in Clovelly Oil Co., LLC v. Midstates Petroleum Co., LLC 2012 WL 2016225 (La.App. 3 Cir.,2012). Additional briefing and/or argument on the impact of these decisions on this case needs to be evaluated and considered. Finally, the Court requires additional briefing comparing or distinguishing Columbine II Ltd. Partnership v. Energen Resources Corp., 129 Fed. Appx. 119 (5th Cir. 2005) to the facts of this case.
Accordingly, in light of the above ruling, additional discovery on the cross-motions may be appropriate. The Court hereby sets an in-person status conference for September 25, 2012, at 10:00 a.m. to discuss all issues raised in the instant order.
THUS DONE AND SIGNED, in chambers, Shreveport, Louisiana on this 19th day of September, 2012.
______________________
S. MAURICE HICKS, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE