924 F.3d 1070
9th Cir.2019Background
- The Murrays (surface owners) and the Seversons/BEJ & RTWF (mineral owners) executed a 2005 deed reserving "all... minerals in, on and under" the land; neither side contemplated dinosaur fossils at closing.
- Beginning in 2005–2013 the Murrays discovered valuable dinosaur fossils (including a nearly complete T. rex and the "Dueling Dinosaurs"); proceeds from sales are in escrow pending litigation.
- The Murrays sued in Montana state court for a declaratory judgment that the fossils belong to the surface estate; defendants removed to federal court and counterclaimed that fossils are minerals belonging to the mineral estate.
- District Court (D. Mont.) granted summary judgment to the Murrays, holding fossils are not "minerals" under the deed (187 F. Supp. 3d 1203).
- A Ninth Circuit panel reversed, holding fossils are minerals under Montana law (908 F.3d 437); the court later granted rehearing en banc and, finding no controlling Montana precedent, certified the central question to the Montana Supreme Court: whether dinosaur fossils are "minerals" for purposes of a mineral reservation; proceedings were stayed pending the Montana court's response.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Murrays) | Defendant's Argument (Seversons/BEJ) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dinosaur fossils constitute "minerals" under Montana law for a mineral reservation | Fossils are remains of once-living organisms, valuable for their existence and completeness rather than for mineral composition or refining; ordinary and natural meaning of "mineral" excludes fossils | Fossils contain mineral compounds (hydroxylapatite/francolite) and some fossils are rare/exceptional with special commercial value; under the Heinatz/Farley test rare and valuable items qualify as minerals | No definitive Montana precedent; district court held fossils are not minerals; panel reversed; en banc court certified the question to the Montana Supreme Court for authoritative state-law answer |
| Whether federal court should certify the state-law question to the Montana Supreme Court | (Implicit) Federal court should predict Montana law rather than certify unless necessary | (Implicit) Certification appropriate if state law unsettled and question important | Ninth Circuit en banc exercised discretion to certify the question to the Montana Supreme Court (invoking comity, novelty, and statewide implications) |
Key Cases Cited
- Heinatz v. Allen, 217 S.W.2d 994 (Tex. 1949) (articulates the "ordinary and natural meaning" test: nontraditional substances are minerals only if "rare and exceptional" or possessing special value)
- Farley v. Booth Bros. Land & Livestock Co., 890 P.2d 377 (Mont. 1995) (Montana adopted/applied Heinatz approach in deciding whether scoria is a mineral)
- Hart v. Craig, 216 P.3d 197 (Mont. 2009) (Montana reaffirmed the Heinatz/Farley approach in a subsequent mineral-reservation dispute)
- Murray v. BEJ Minerals, LLC, 908 F.3d 437 (9th Cir. 2018) (Ninth Circuit panel held fossils are minerals; later designated non-precedential and the question certified en banc)
- Murray v. Billings Garfield Land Co., 187 F. Supp. 3d 1203 (D. Mont. 2016) (district court granted summary judgment for surface owners, holding fossils are not minerals)