Preview
BREITBURN OPERATING, LP, IN THE DISTRICT COURT
successor interest to
QRE OPERATING, LLC
Plaintiff
OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
ROGER D. PARSONS, IN HIS
CAPACITY AS TRUSTEE OF THE
LL&E ROYALTY TRUST,
Defendant 133RD JUDICIAL DISTRICT
MAVERICK NATURAL RESOURCES, LLC’S ORIGINAL ANSWER
Introduction
Third Party Defendant Maverick Natural Resources, LLC (“Maverick”)
submits this Original Answer to the pleading of Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff/Third
Party Plaintiff Roger D. Parsons, in his Capacity as Trustee of the LL&E Royalty
Trust (collectively, Parsons and the Trust are referred to herein as the Trust
General Denial
Maverick asserts a general denial.
Affirmative Defenses
The Trust’s claims are barred in their entirety because Maverick did
not exist at the time the events giving rise to this suit occurred.
The Trust’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by limitations.
The Trust’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, because they have
been discharged in bankruptcy.
Maverick denies that all conditions precedent have been met;
specifically, the Trust has failed to present its claim to Maverick and allow it thirty
days to respond pursuant to Chapter 38 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies
Code.
To the extent that the Trust relies on contractual interpretations or
modifications that are not in writing, the Trust’s claims are barred by the statute of
frauds.
The Trust’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, because a defendant
cannot tortiously interfere with a contract to which it is a party.Furthermore, the
Trust’s claims against Maverick are barred as a_ entity cannot tortiously interfere
with an affiliate or subsidiary.
The Trust’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, ecause Maverick’s
actions were privileged.
The Trust’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, because Maverick’s
actions were justified.
The Trust’s claims are not ripe, and/or the Trust lacks standing to
bring claims against Maverick
Maverick acted in good faith.
The Trust’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of
waiver.
The Trust’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of
ratification and consent
The Trust’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by settlement,
elease, res judicata, collateral estoppel, claim/issue preclusion, and
accord/satisfaction.
The Trust’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, pursuant to
Section 7.06 of the Trust Agreement. Decisions made regarding the Trust were
made in good faith reliance on the opinions of experts Per Section 7.06 of the Trust
Agreement, the opinions of parties deemed to be experts by “shall be full and
complete authorization and protection in respect of any action taken or suffered by
it hereunder in good faith and in accordance with the opinion of any such party.” To
the extent that the Trust’s claims are based on decisions made in good faith reliance
on the opinions of experts, such claims are barred by the Trust Agreement.
The Trust’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of
estoppel.
The Trust’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of
laches.
The Trust’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of
unclean hands
The Trust’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, because of
superseding and intervening causes of he Trust’s claimed damages
The Trust’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, because it failed to
mitigate its alleged damages.
The Trust’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, because of prior
material breach and the failure of conditions precedent.
Maverick affirmatively allege that in the unlikely event that an
adverse judgment is rendered against it in this matter, it is entitled to all offsets
and credits provided for under the statutory and common laws of the State of Texas,
including but not limited to the provisions of Chapter 33 of the Texas Civil Practices
and Remedies Code. This includes all settlements paid to the Trust by any party or
third parties, and any and all payments that will be made from future production
Maverick would also be entitled to an offset based on future expenses to be incurred
for the benefit of the Trust
The Trust’s conspiracy claim fails as a parent entity cannot conspire
with its subsidiary.
The Trust must elect between any alternative theories of recovery
upon which seek relief, or any theories of recovery upon which seeks relief that
give rise to the same alleged damages. Maverick assert the one satisfaction rule as
a defense.
The Trust not entitled to recover attorney’s fees from Maverick
because the Trust has failed to properly assert any cause of action that would
allow for the recovery of attorney’s fees; and 2) attorney’s fees are not properly
recovered from a non corporate entity under Chapter 38 of the Civil Practice and
Remedies Code
Maverick assert all rights under Chapter 33 of the Texas Civil
Practice and Remedies Code.The Trust’s claims are barred by the defenses of
contributory, comparative, and/or proportionate negligence, fault, and/or
responsibility, if any, among the Trust other parties to this lawsuit each settling
person, and any responsible third party.
ny award of exemplary damages in this case would violate the United
States Constitution, the Texas Constitution, and public policy. Maverick thus
asserts its rights under Chapter 41 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code,
including without limitation Sections 41.003, 41.004, and 41.006 41.013.
Prayer for Relief
Maverick request that the Trust take nothing by reason of this
lawsuit; that Maverick recover its attorneys’ fees, court costs and expenses and
that any and all other costs be taxed against the TrustMaverick request such
other, further, or alternative relief to which it may be legally or equitably entitled.
Respectfully submitted,
ECK EDDEN
By: /s/ Geoff A. Gannaway
Geoff A. Gannaway
State Bar No. 24036617
ggannaway@beckredden.com
Joe W. Redden, Jr.
State Bar No. 16660600
jredden@beckredden.com
Allison Standish Miller
State Bar No. 24046440
amiller@beckredden.com
Joel T. Towner
State Bar No. 24083978
towner@beckredden.com
1221 McKinney Street, Suite 4500
Houston, Texas 77010
Telephone No. (713) 951 3700
Facsimile No. (713) 951 3720
TTORNEYS OR LAINTIFF OUNTER
EFENDANT REITBURN PERATING LP,
successor interest
QRE_ PERATING LLC
HIR ARTY EFENDANTS
AVERICK ATURAL ESOURCES LLC,
REITBURN ANAGEMENT OMPANY LLC,
REITBURN NERGY ARTNERS LP,
NERGY
Certificate of Service
I hereby certify that on Friday , 201 , a true and correct copy of the
foregoing instrument was served on all known counsel of record in accordance with
the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure via e service, wit
John H. Kim, Esq. Joseph G. Thompson III, Esq.
Timothy A. Rothberg, Esq. orter Hedges
The Kim Law Firm 1000 Main Street, 36th Floor
4309 Yoakum, Suite 2000 Houston, Texas 77002
Houston, Texas 77006 jthompson@porterhedges.com
jhk@thekimlawfirm.com Attorneys for Third Party Defendant
tim@thekimlawfirm.com ConocoPhillips Company
Attorneys for Defendant /Counter
Plaintiff/
Third Party Plaintiff Roger D. Parsons
as Trustee of the LL&E Royalty Trust
W Stephen Benesh, Esq. Andrew R. Harvin, Esq.
Patrick A. Caballero, Esq. Peter Wells, Esq.
Bracewell LLP Doyle, Restrepo, Harvin & Robbins,
111 Congress Avenue, Suite 2300 L.L.P.
Austin, Texas 78701 4043 440 Louisiana, Suite 2300
steve.benesh@bracewelllaw.com Houston, Texas 77002
patrick.caballero@bracewelllaw.com aharvin@drhrlaw.com
Attorneys for Third Party Defendant pwells@drhrlaw.com
the Bank of New York Mellon Trust Co., Attorneys for Third Party Defendant
N.A. Stifel, Nicolaus & Co.
/s/ Geoff A. Gannaway
Geoff A. Gannaway
VERIFICATION
THE STATE OF TEXAS §
§
COUNTY OF HARRIS §
BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, on this day personally appeared
Roy Mitchell, who, being duly sworn, under oath, stated as follows:
My name is Roy Mitchell. I currently serve as Assistant General Counsel and
Corporate Secretary at Maverick Natural Resources, LLC. I have read the foregoing
pleading entitled Maverick Resources LLC’s Original Answer. The factual
information contained in the answer is within my personal knowledge or based on
information I obtained from sources I believe to be reliabl
Ro: itchell
As astant General Counsel
and Corporate Secretary
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME on this _ // day of
July, 2019, to verify which witness my hand and seal of office.
ST LIZ GELLER Notary Publ: nnd for the State of Texas
lotary Public, State of Texas,
comm, Expires 10-04-2020
Za Notary ID 126682231
Preview
BREITBURN OPERATING, LP, IN THE DISTRICT COURT successor interest to QRE OPERATING, LLC Plaintiff OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS ROGER D. PARSONS, IN HIS CAPACITY AS TRUSTEE OF THE LL&E ROYALTY TRUST, Defendant 133RD JUDICIAL DISTRICT MAVERICK NATURAL RESOURCES, LLC’S ORIGINAL ANSWER Introduction Third Party Defendant Maverick Natural Resources, LLC (“Maverick”) submits this Original Answer to the pleading of Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff/Third Party Plaintiff Roger D. Parsons, in his Capacity as Trustee of the LL&E Royalty Trust (collectively, Parsons and the Trust are referred to herein as the Trust General Denial Maverick asserts a general denial. Affirmative Defenses The Trust’s claims are barred in their entirety because Maverick did not exist at the time the events giving rise to this suit occurred. The Trust’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by limitations. The Trust’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, because they have been discharged in bankruptcy. Maverick denies that all conditions precedent have been met; specifically, the Trust has failed to present its claim to Maverick and allow it thirty days to respond pursuant to Chapter 38 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. To the extent that the Trust relies on contractual interpretations or modifications that are not in writing, the Trust’s claims are barred by the statute of frauds. The Trust’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, because a defendant cannot tortiously interfere with a contract to which it is a party.Furthermore, the Trust’s claims against Maverick are barred as a_ entity cannot tortiously interfere with an affiliate or subsidiary. The Trust’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, ecause Maverick’s actions were privileged. The Trust’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, because Maverick’s actions were justified. The Trust’s claims are not ripe, and/or the Trust lacks standing to bring claims against Maverick Maverick acted in good faith. The Trust’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of waiver. The Trust’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of ratification and consent The Trust’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by settlement, elease, res judicata, collateral estoppel, claim/issue preclusion, and accord/satisfaction. The Trust’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, pursuant to Section 7.06 of the Trust Agreement. Decisions made regarding the Trust were made in good faith reliance on the opinions of experts Per Section 7.06 of the Trust Agreement, the opinions of parties deemed to be experts by “shall be full and complete authorization and protection in respect of any action taken or suffered by it hereunder in good faith and in accordance with the opinion of any such party.” To the extent that the Trust’s claims are based on decisions made in good faith reliance on the opinions of experts, such claims are barred by the Trust Agreement. The Trust’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of estoppel. The Trust’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of laches. The Trust’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of unclean hands The Trust’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, because of superseding and intervening causes of he Trust’s claimed damages The Trust’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, because it failed to mitigate its alleged damages. The Trust’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, because of prior material breach and the failure of conditions precedent. Maverick affirmatively allege that in the unlikely event that an adverse judgment is rendered against it in this matter, it is entitled to all offsets and credits provided for under the statutory and common laws of the State of Texas, including but not limited to the provisions of Chapter 33 of the Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code. This includes all settlements paid to the Trust by any party or third parties, and any and all payments that will be made from future production Maverick would also be entitled to an offset based on future expenses to be incurred for the benefit of the Trust The Trust’s conspiracy claim fails as a parent entity cannot conspire with its subsidiary. The Trust must elect between any alternative theories of recovery upon which seek relief, or any theories of recovery upon which seeks relief that give rise to the same alleged damages. Maverick assert the one satisfaction rule as a defense. The Trust not entitled to recover attorney’s fees from Maverick because the Trust has failed to properly assert any cause of action that would allow for the recovery of attorney’s fees; and 2) attorney’s fees are not properly recovered from a non corporate entity under Chapter 38 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code Maverick assert all rights under Chapter 33 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code.The Trust’s claims are barred by the defenses of contributory, comparative, and/or proportionate negligence, fault, and/or responsibility, if any, among the Trust other parties to this lawsuit each settling person, and any responsible third party. ny award of exemplary damages in this case would violate the United States Constitution, the Texas Constitution, and public policy. Maverick thus asserts its rights under Chapter 41 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, including without limitation Sections 41.003, 41.004, and 41.006 41.013. Prayer for Relief Maverick request that the Trust take nothing by reason of this lawsuit; that Maverick recover its attorneys’ fees, court costs and expenses and that any and all other costs be taxed against the TrustMaverick request such other, further, or alternative relief to which it may be legally or equitably entitled. Respectfully submitted, ECK EDDEN By: /s/ Geoff A. Gannaway Geoff A. Gannaway State Bar No. 24036617 ggannaway@beckredden.com Joe W. Redden, Jr. State Bar No. 16660600 jredden@beckredden.com Allison Standish Miller State Bar No. 24046440 amiller@beckredden.com Joel T. Towner State Bar No. 24083978 towner@beckredden.com 1221 McKinney Street, Suite 4500 Houston, Texas 77010 Telephone No. (713) 951 3700 Facsimile No. (713) 951 3720 TTORNEYS OR LAINTIFF OUNTER EFENDANT REITBURN PERATING LP, successor interest QRE_ PERATING LLC HIR ARTY EFENDANTS AVERICK ATURAL ESOURCES LLC, REITBURN ANAGEMENT OMPANY LLC, REITBURN NERGY ARTNERS LP, NERGY Certificate of Service I hereby certify that on Friday , 201 , a true and correct copy of the foregoing instrument was served on all known counsel of record in accordance with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure via e service, wit John H. Kim, Esq. Joseph G. Thompson III, Esq. Timothy A. Rothberg, Esq. orter Hedges The Kim Law Firm 1000 Main Street, 36th Floor 4309 Yoakum, Suite 2000 Houston, Texas 77002 Houston, Texas 77006 jthompson@porterhedges.com jhk@thekimlawfirm.com Attorneys for Third Party Defendant tim@thekimlawfirm.com ConocoPhillips Company Attorneys for Defendant /Counter Plaintiff/ Third Party Plaintiff Roger D. Parsons as Trustee of the LL&E Royalty Trust W Stephen Benesh, Esq. Andrew R. Harvin, Esq. Patrick A. Caballero, Esq. Peter Wells, Esq. Bracewell LLP Doyle, Restrepo, Harvin & Robbins, 111 Congress Avenue, Suite 2300 L.L.P. Austin, Texas 78701 4043 440 Louisiana, Suite 2300 steve.benesh@bracewelllaw.com Houston, Texas 77002 patrick.caballero@bracewelllaw.com aharvin@drhrlaw.com Attorneys for Third Party Defendant pwells@drhrlaw.com the Bank of New York Mellon Trust Co., Attorneys for Third Party Defendant N.A. Stifel, Nicolaus & Co. /s/ Geoff A. Gannaway Geoff A. Gannaway VERIFICATION THE STATE OF TEXAS § § COUNTY OF HARRIS § BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, on this day personally appeared Roy Mitchell, who, being duly sworn, under oath, stated as follows: My name is Roy Mitchell. I currently serve as Assistant General Counsel and Corporate Secretary at Maverick Natural Resources, LLC. I have read the foregoing pleading entitled Maverick Resources LLC’s Original Answer. The factual information contained in the answer is within my personal knowledge or based on information I obtained from sources I believe to be reliabl Ro: itchell As astant General Counsel and Corporate Secretary SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME on this _ // day of July, 2019, to verify which witness my hand and seal of office. ST LIZ GELLER Notary Publ: nnd for the State of Texas lotary Public, State of Texas, comm, Expires 10-04-2020 Za Notary ID 126682231