Paulus v. Beck Energy Corp.

26 Citing cases

  1. Talbott v. Condevco, Inc.

    2020 Ohio 3130 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020)   Cited 1 times

    They equated the initial work (of stimulating and evaluating production) to a drilling or equipping cost, which is not an operating expense, or to reworking a well (such as by replacing a pump), which is also not an operating expense. SeeBlausey , 61 Ohio St.2d at 265-266, 400 N.E.2d 408 (the capital investment is not an operating expense in the paying quantities equation); Paulus v. Beck Energy Corp. , 2017-Ohio-5716, 94 N.E.3d 73 at ¶ 61 (recurring production costs are operating expenses, but the cost to rework a well, by replacing the downhole pump and rebuilding the wellhead, was a non-recurring, capital investment to be excluded from operating expenses as an equipping cost). {¶50} Appellant did exclude from operating expenses the initial reopening costs incurred in May 2012 (such as pump removal and replacement, unsuccessful swabbing attempts followed by bailing of the well bore, and the pulling and replacement of the tubing) and the costs incurred in the November 2014 equipping of the well with a gas line running to a combined line with a compressor, apparently recognizing these were equipment or capital expenses rather than operating expenses.

  2. Ullman v. Whitacre Enters.

    2021 Ohio 4656 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021)

    "[T]he Court essentially defers to lessee's judgment by allowing the lessee to continue even though the operation as a whole does not profit as long as the income minus current operating expenses makes a profit." Paulus v. Beck Energy Corp., 7th Dist. No. 16 MO 0008, 2017-Ohio-5716, 94 N.E.3d 73, ¶ 77 {¶50} While a lessee is given discretion to determine whether a well is profitable, a good faith standard is imposed.

  3. Stewart v. Martin

    3:21-cv-89 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 8, 2023)   Cited 2 times

    Paulus v. Beck Energy Corp., 2017-Ohio-5716, ¶ 95, 94 N.E.3d 73, 98 (7th Dist. 2017)

  4. In re Smitty's/Cam2 303 Tractor Hydraulic Fluid Mktg. Sales Practices & Prods. Liab. Litig.

    Master 4:20-MD-02936-SRB (W.D. Mo. Mar. 8, 2022)

    Storey v. Attends Healthcare Prods., Inc., No. 15-CV-13577, 2016 WL 3125210, at *13 (E.D. Mich. June 3, 2016) (“Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim for unjust enrichment under Michigan law because . . . . [w]hatever benefit [the consumer plaintiffs] conferred on [the remote manufacturer] Defendant they conferred indirectly.”); In re Gen. Motors LLC Ignition Switch Litig., 257 F.Supp.3d 372, 427 (S.D.N.Y. 2017) (applying Michigan law) (collecting cases); Paulus v. Beck Energy Corp., 94 N.E.3d 73, 98 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017) (“As no transaction occurred between the plaintiff and the defendant, the Supreme Court [of Ohio] concluded the plaintiff could not establish that defendant retained any benefit to which it is not justly entitled”) (citing Johnson v. Microsoft Corp., 106 Ohio St.3d 278 (2005)); Loeb v. Champion Petfoods USA Inc., 359 F.Supp.3d 597, 605 (E.D. Wisc. 2019) (finding Plaintiff did not establish Defendants were unjustly enriched because “it [was] undisputed that Plaintiff bought [the product] in various pet supply stores, not from Defendants directly”).

  5. Defrank v. Samsung Elecs. Am.

    Civ. No. 19-21401 (KM) (JBC) (D.N.J. Oct. 26, 2020)   Cited 22 times
    Finding the plaintiffs adequately pled unconscionability to avoid the warranties' time limitation

    Ohio requires an "economic transaction" between the parties to ground an unjust enrichment claim, because the plaintiff must establish "that a benefit had been conferred upon that defendant by the purchaser." Johnson v. Microsoft Corp., 834 N.E.2d 791, 799 (Ohio 2005); Paulus v. Beck Energy Corp., 94 N.E.3d 73, 98 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017) (applying Johnson). In Johnson, because the plaintiff had purchased her computer from a retailer rather than directly from Microsoft, she could not bring an unjust enrichment claim.

  6. KAM Dev., LLC v. Marco's Franchising, LLC

    Case No. 3:20-cv-2024 (N.D. Ohio Oct. 20, 2020)

    But "[e]vidence of subsequent agreements or modifications of a contract does not fall within the parol evidence rule." Paulus v. Beck Energy Corp., 94 N.E.3d 73, 85 (Ct. App. Ohio 2017) (further citation omitted). Thus, KAM does not have to overcome the parol evidence rule to argue that the course of conduct between the parties demonstrates that, despite entering into a development schedule in 2011 that provided for quarterly development targets, KAM and Marco's, through their conduct, amended that agreement to provide for a development schedule that is evaluated annually.

  7. McCoy v. C.G.O., Inc.

    2023 Ohio 2945 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023)

    "Profitability, under the income minus operating expenses equation, is the standard in Ohio." Paulus v. Beck Energy Corp., 7th Dist. Monroe No. 16 MO 0008, 2017-Ohio-5716, 94 N.E.3d 73, ¶ 68.

  8. Bd. of Educ. v. Colaianni Constr.

    2023 Ohio 2285 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023)   Cited 2 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Employment of a plain error review is left to the discretion of the reviewing court. Paulus v. Beck Energy Corp., 7th Dist. Monroe, 2017-Ohio-5716, 94 N.E.3d 73, ¶ 30, citing Risner v. ODNR, 144 Ohio St.3d 278, 2015-Ohio-3731, 42 N.E.3d 718, ¶ 27. The plain error doctrine in civil cases "is sharply limited to the extremely rare case involving exceptional circumstances where the error, left unobjected to at the trial court, rises to the level of challenging the legitimacy of the underlying judicial process itself."

  9. Hogue v. Whitacre

    2022 Ohio 3616 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022)

    {¶31} "[T]he Court essentially defers to lessee's judgment by allowing the lessee to continue even though the operation as a whole does not profit as long as the income minus current operating expenses makes a profit." Paulus v. Beck Energy Corp., 2017-Ohio-5716, 94 N.E.3d 73 (7th Dist.), ¶ 77. While a lessee is given discretion to determine whether a well is profitable, a good faith standard is imposed.

  10. Jones v. Sharefax Credit Union, Inc.

    2022 Ohio 176 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022)

    {¶10} Mootness concerns subject-matter jurisdiction and may be raised by an appellee on appeal without the necessity of a cross-appeal. See WBCMT 2007-C33 Office 7870, LLC v. Breakwater Equity Partners, LLC, 2019-Ohio-3935, 133 N.E.3d 607, ¶ 39 (1st Dist.), citing Paulus v. Beck Energy Corp., 2017-Ohio-5716, 94 N.E.3d 73, ¶ 29 (7th Dist.) (matters of subject-matter jurisdiction may be raised for the first time on appeal); JG City LLC v. State Bd. of Pharmacy, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 21AP-38, 2021-Ohio-4624 ("the filing of a cross-appeal is not a prerequisite to challenging a court's subject-matter jurisdiction, as subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be waived and may be raised at any time"). {¶11} "The subject-matter jurisdiction of common pleas courts is limited to justiciable matters."