JM Huber Corporation v. Comstock Offshore - Document No. 30

JM Huber Corporation v. Comstock Offshore Doc.
30
Case 2:04-cv-02870-GTP-ALC Document 30 Filed 04/10/2007 Page 1 of 6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
J. M. HUBER CORPORATION * CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS * NO: 04-2870
COMSTOCK OFFSHORE, LLC * SECTION: "D"(5)
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the court are the following motions:
(1) “Motion to Reopen Case” filed by Plaintiff and
Defendant in Counter-Claim, J.M. Huber Corporation;
and
(2) “Motion to Compel Arbitration” filed by Defendant
and Plaintiff in Counter-Claim, Comstock Offshore,
L.L.C.
The motions, set for hearing on Wednesday, April 11, 2007, are
respectively opposed and they are before the court on briefs,
without oral argument. Now, having considered the memoranda of
counsel, the record, and the applicable law, the court rules.
Under a Joint Operating Agreement (JOA), Huber was allegedly
the Operator of Record of certain oil and gas wells offshore
Dockets.Justia.com
Louisiana, and Comstock allegedly agreed to participate as a Non-
Operator. (Complaint, ¶5). Further, pursuant to the JOA, Huber
allegedly was to pay all expenses incurred in the development and
operation of the contract area and charge Comstock through Joint
Interest Billings (JIBs) its proportionate share upon the expense
basis set out in the JOA. (Id. at ¶6).
Prior to filing this suit, Huber allegedly sold its interest
in the subject leases to Marlin Energy Offshore, L.L.C. (Id. at
¶12). Pursuant to the provisions of JOA and concurrent with the
sale of Huber’s interests to Marlin, Huber allegedly requested
Comstock and the other non-operating interest, Pierce Junction, to
consent to the change of Operator from Huber to Marlin. (Id. at ¶
14).
In this lawsuit, Huber initially sued Comstock for its alleged
failure to pay all JIB statements when due, and Huber also sought
a Declaratory Judgment requiring Comstock to sign the change of
Operator forms for the property that was no longer being operated
by Huber. Comstock filed a counter-claim against Huber seeking the
return of allegedly overpaid JIBs and Comstock sought a Declaratory
Judgment requiring Huber to allow Comstock to audit the JIB
accounts for years 2002 and 2003.
On June 2, 2005, the parties filed a Motion to Stay
Proceedings stating that:
2
2.
Comstock has recently signed the Change of

Operator forms at issue here. In response,
Huber has agreed to allow Comstock to conduct
full audits for the years 2002 and 2003.
These actions have rendered the Declaratory
Judgment actions moot. Additionally, the
parties have jointly agreed to attempt to
resolve the matter following the audits either
by mediation or arbitration.
3.
Due to these recent developments, an October

17, 2005 trial date and pending discovery and
expert deadlines, Huber and Comstock move the
Honorable Court for a stay of this Litigation
in order to allow Comstock the time necessary
to proceed with the audits and subsequent
attempt by the parties to resolve these
matters, in full, without Court involvement.
(See Motion to Stay Proceedings, Doc. No. 14, p. 2, emphasis
added).
The court granted the Motion to Stay, staying the matter and
administratively closing it. (Doc. No. 15). In its “Motion to
Reopen Case,” Huber represents that Comstock has conducted its
audit of the Joint Interest Billing accounts for 2002 and 2003, and
the parties have been unable to resolve the issues between them,
“leaving this lawsuit as the only avenue for resolution.” (Huber’s
memo., Doc. No. 16-2, at p. 2). However, Comstock responds that
this case should not be reopened “because it is undisputed that
Huber has neither mediated nor arbitrated its dispute with
3
Comstock.” (Comstock’s Opp., Doc. No. 25 at p. 2). Comstock
argues that the parties’ agreement reflected in the Motion to Stay
(quoted above under enumerated paragraph 2) is a binding
arbitration agreement governed by the Federal Arbitration Act, 9
U.S.C. §2. (Id. at p. 3). Thus, Comstock has filed a “Motion to
Compel Arbitration.”
Comstock attaches to its Motion to Compel Arbitration, the
Declaration of W. Scott Hastings, an attorney for Comstock, who
declares in part:
After the parties were unable to resolve their

dispute through informal discussions, Comstock
sent a proposed arbitration agreement to
Huber’s lawyer on March 7, 2007. A true and
correct copy of that proposed agreement is
attached a Exhibit “1" to this declaration.
Also, on March 7, 2007, Huber’s attorney, Mr.
Knister, sent a proposed arbitration agreement
to me. A true and correct copy of Huber’s
proposed arbitration agreement is attached as
Exhibit “2" to this declaration.
(See Hastings Declaration and attached Exhibits, Doc. 23-4).
The court concludes that there is no enforceable arbitration
agreement. In the Motion to Stay, “the parties ... jointly agreed
to attempt to resolve the matter following the audits [for years
2002 and 2003] either by mediation or arbitration.” ((See Motion
to Stay Proceedings, Doc. No. 14, p. 2, emphasis added). As
evidenced by the proposed Arbitration Agreements attached to
4
Comstock’s Motion to Compel Arbitration, the parties have exchanged
arbitration agreements, but no arbitration agreement has been
agreed upon and executed. Further, in Comstock’s proposed
arbitration agreement, Comstock “has requested that Huber permit
Comstock to undertake an additional joint interest audit.” (See
Ex. 1 attached to Hastings Declaration, Doc. No. 23-2). On the
other hand, the court finds that through its proposed arbitration
agreement, Huber has complied with any obligation created by
Paragraph 2 of the Motion to Stay by attempting to arbitrate with
Comstock.
Accordingly;
IT IS ORDERED that the “Motion to Compel Arbitration” filed by
Defendant and Plaintiff in Counter-Claim, Comstock Offshore,
L.L.C., be and is hereby DENIED;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the “Motion to Reopen Case” filed
by Plaintiff and Defendant in Counter-Claim, J.M. Huber
Corporation, be and is hereby GRANTED, placing this case back on
the court’s active trial docket; and
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a Telephone Conference be conducted
by the Courtroom Deputy with counsel of record on Thursday, April
26, 2007, at 11:00 a.m. to schedule dates for the Trial, Pre-Trial
Conference and all attendant cut-off dates.
5
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 10th day of April, 2007.
______________________________
A.J. McNAMARA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

JM Huber Corporation v. Comstock Offshore - Document No. 30

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

JM Huber Corporation v. Comstock Offshore - Document No. 30

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

JM Huber Corporation v. Comstock Offshore - Document No. 30

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

JM Huber Corporation v. Comstock Offshore Doc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

J. M. HUBER CORPORATION * CIVIL ACTION

ORDER AND REASONS

Before the court are the following motions:

(1) “Motion to Reopen Case” filed by Plaintiff and

Defendant in Counter-Claim, J.M. Huber Corporation;

(2) “Motion to Compel Arbitration” filed by Defendant

and Plaintiff in Counter-Claim, Comstock Offshore,

respectively opposed and they are before the court on briefs,

without oral argument. Now, having considered the memoranda of

Under a Joint Operating Agreement (JOA), Huber was allegedly

the Operator of Record of certain oil and gas wells offshore

Louisiana, and Comstock allegedly agreed to participate as a Non-

Operator. (Complaint, ¶5). Further, pursuant to the JOA, Huber

allegedly was to pay all expenses incurred in the development and

operation of the contract area and charge Comstock through Joint

Interest Billings (JIBs) its proportionate share upon the expense

basis set out in the JOA. (Id. at ¶6).

Prior to filing this suit, Huber allegedly sold its interest

in the subject leases to Marlin Energy Offshore, L.L.C. (Id. at

¶12). Pursuant to the provisions of JOA and concurrent with the

sale of Huber’s interests to Marlin, Huber allegedly requested

Comstock and the other non-operating interest, Pierce Junction, to

consent to the change of Operator from Huber to Marlin. (Id. at ¶

In this lawsuit, Huber initially sued Comstock for its alleged

a Declaratory Judgment requiring Comstock to sign the change of

by Huber. Comstock filed a counter-claim against Huber seeking the

return of allegedly overpaid JIBs and Comstock sought a Declaratory

Judgment requiring Huber to allow Comstock to audit the JIB

accounts for years 2002 and 2003.

On June 2, 2005, the parties filed a Motion to Stay

Proceedings stating that:

Comstock has recently signed the Change of

Due to these recent developments, an October

(See Motion to Stay Proceedings, Doc. No. 14, p. 2, emphasis

administratively closing it. (Doc. No. 15). In its “Motion to

Reopen Case,” Huber represents that Comstock has conducted its

“leaving this lawsuit as the only avenue for resolution.” (Huber’s

memo., Doc. No. 16-2, at p. 2). However, Comstock responds that

this case should not be reopened “because it is undisputed that

Huber has neither mediated nor arbitrated its dispute with

Comstock.” (Comstock’s Opp., Doc. No. 25 at p. 2). Comstock

argues that the parties’ agreement reflected in the Motion to Stay

(quoted above under enumerated paragraph 2) is a binding

arbitration agreement governed by the Federal Arbitration Act, 9

U.S.C. §2. (Id. at p. 3). Thus, Comstock has filed a “Motion to

Comstock attaches to its Motion to Compel Arbitration, the

Declaration of W. Scott Hastings, an attorney for Comstock, who

After the parties were unable to resolve their

(See Hastings Declaration and attached Exhibits, Doc. 23-4).

The court concludes that there is no enforceable arbitration

agreement. In the Motion to Stay, “the parties ... jointly agreed

to attempt to resolve the matter following the audits [for years

2002 and 2003] either by mediation or arbitration.” ((See Motion

to Stay Proceedings, Doc. No. 14, p. 2, emphasis added). As

evidenced by the proposed Arbitration Agreements attached to

Comstock’s Motion to Compel Arbitration, the parties have exchanged

arbitration agreements, but no arbitration agreement has been

agreed upon and executed. Further, in Comstock’s proposed