Enerplus Resources (USA) Corp. v. Wilbur Wilkinson
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 14127
| 8th Cir. | 2017Background
- Wilkinson and Peak North settled a tribal-court dispute in 2010; Peak North assigned Wilkinson an overriding royalty interest (ORRI) and the parties signed a Settlement Agreement with a forum-selection clause requiring disputes to be resolved in the U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota.
- Peak North later merged into Enerplus; between Aug. 2014 and Oct. 2015 Enerplus mistakenly overpaid Wilkinson ~$2.96 million in ORRI and sought return of the excess payments.
- Wilkinson sued Enerplus in Fort Berthold Tribal Court (Feb. 29, 2016), alleging underpayment and seeking an accounting, declarations and injunctive relief concerning the ORRI/title.
- Enerplus filed in federal district court seeking (1) a preliminary injunction barring Wilkinson’s tribal-court case and tribal jurisdiction over Enerplus, and (2) deposit of the overpaid funds into the court registry; the district court granted the preliminary injunction and ordered the funds deposited.
- Wilkinson appealed only the preliminary injunction, arguing the district court failed to give appropriate weight to tribal sovereignty and that the forum-selection clause should not displace tribal-court jurisdiction; he also argued the merger/assignment may have invalidated the Settlement Agreement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Wilkinson) | Defendant's Argument (Enerplus) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Enforceability of forum-selection clause against tribal-court suit | Clause should not displace tribal sovereignty; tribal court should decide jurisdiction first because underlying interests involve tribal lands | Forum-selection clause requires federal-district resolution; clause excludes tribal forum and removes tribal-exhaustion requirement | Clause is enforceable; tribal-exhaustion doctrine does not apply where parties agreed to a forum-selection clause; injunction proper |
| Application of Dataphase preliminary-injunction factors | District court undervalued tribal public-interest factor and over-relied on clause | District court properly balanced irreparable harm, likelihood of success, harm to parties, and public interest; injunction necessary to protect Enerplus and enforce clause | District court’s Dataphase analysis was within its discretion; affirmed |
| Effect of Peak North–Enerplus merger on Settlement Agreement validity | Merger/assignment (and lack of Secretary of the Interior approval on leases) may have voided assignments and thus the Settlement Agreement | No allegation that an assignment occurred separate from the merger; merger does not nullify the Settlement Agreement; Wilkinson offers no authority showing invalidation | Wilkinson’s challenge to validity is unpersuasive; merger did not void the agreement |
| Deposit of excess funds into court registry | (Argued via stay request) Funds should not be transferred pending appeal | Deposit appropriate to preserve funds and enforce federal jurisdiction | District court appropriately ordered deposit; no stay granted |
Key Cases Cited
- Dataphase Sys., Inc. v. C L Sys., Inc., 640 F.2d 109 (8th Cir. 1981) (sets four-factor preliminary-injunction test)
- Richland/Wilkin Joint Powers Auth. v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 826 F.3d 1030 (8th Cir. 2016) (standard of review for preliminary injunction discretion)
- Novus Franchising, Inc. v. Dawson, 725 F.3d 885 (8th Cir. 2013) (quotation on district-court discretion)
- FGS Constructors, Inc. v. Carlow, 64 F.3d 1230 (8th Cir. 1995) (tribal-exhaustion doctrine does not apply when parties include a forum-selection clause)
- PCTV Gold, Inc. v. SpeedNet, LLC, 508 F.3d 1137 (8th Cir. 2007) (standards for affirming district-court discretionary decisions)
- Atl. Marine Constr. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for the W. Dist. of Tex., 134 S. Ct. 568 (2013) (forum-selection clauses given controlling weight except in exceptional cases)
- M.B. Rests., Inc. v. CKE Rests., Inc., 183 F.3d 750 (8th Cir. 1999) (forum-selection clauses are prima facie valid and enforceable)