Anthony Griffin v. Amerada Petroleum Corpor
17-30165
| 5th Cir. | Nov 3, 2017Background
- Plaintiffs Anthony Griffin and Dorothy Joachain (heirs of Morel Griffin) sued Hess and ExxonMobil claiming unpaid royalties under an oil, gas, and mineral lease to their great‑grandfather.
- Plaintiffs learned from their mother in 1983–84 of alleged unpaid royalties, investigated public records, consulted family members who received checks, and retained counsel in the mid‑1980s.
- Plaintiffs pursued further investigation over decades and contacted ExxonMobil in 2008; ExxonMobil responded that it had no sales under the lease after 1954, no current interest in the property, and no royalty records showing amounts owed to their father.
- Plaintiffs filed suit on October 10, 2014 alleging production without royalty payments; defendants moved for summary judgment asserting prescription under La. Civ. Code art. 3494(5) (three‑year prescription for royalties).
- The district court granted summary judgment, finding plaintiffs had constructive knowledge of the claims by 2008 and that contra non valentem (discovery rule) did not suspend prescription; the Fifth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether royalty claims are prescribed | Griffin/Joachain argued delay was justified by family illiteracy/education and uncertainty, so claims were not reasonably knowable until close to filing | Hess/ExxonMobil argued plaintiffs knew or reasonably could know of claims by 2008, so three‑year prescription expired before 2014 suit | Court held claims prescribed; plaintiffs had reasonable basis to sue by 2008 |
| Whether contra non valentem (discovery rule) suspends prescription | Plaintiffs urged discovery rule because they lacked specific knowledge and faced barriers due to education and family circumstances | Defendants argued plaintiffs investigated, consulted lawyers, and were not prevented by defendants from suing | Court held contra non valentem inapplicable: plaintiffs acted unreasonably in waiting and provided no evidence defendants concealed information |
| Whether factual disputes precluded summary judgment | Plaintiffs contended genuine disputes about when they had constructive knowledge and questioned deposition interpretations | Defendants relied on plaintiffs’ own deposition testimony and documentary inquiries to show knowledge | Court held no genuine dispute: deposition and record show plaintiffs had sufficient information to trigger prescription |
| Whether procedural waiver of arguments affects appeal | Plaintiffs raised Mineral Code prescription argument for first time on appeal | Defendants argued new argument waived | Court refused to consider the new argument as waived on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Kariuki v. Tarango, 709 F.3d 495 (5th Cir. 2013) (summary judgment standard reviewed de novo)
- S. W. S. Erectors, Inc. v. Infax, Inc., 72 F.3d 489 (5th Cir. 1996) (genuine factual controversy requires more than contradictory statements)
- In re Deepwater Horizon, 857 F.3d 246 (5th Cir. 2017) (non‑movant cannot create a fact issue by contradicting prior sworn statements without explanation)
- Chevron USA, Inc. v. Aker Mar., Inc., 604 F.3d 888 (5th Cir. 2010) (prescription does not begin until plaintiff has reasonable basis to pursue claim against specific defendant)
- Edmundson v. Amoco Prod. Co., 924 F.2d 79 (5th Cir. 1991) (discussing contra non valentem and discovery rule applicability)
- Marin v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 48 So. 3d 234 (La. 2010) (discovery rule to be applied only in extreme circumstances)