Pemex Exploración Y Producción v. Murphy Energy Corp.
923 F. Supp. 2d 961
S.D. Tex.2013Background
- PEP sues multiple defendants for sales in the U.S. of Mexican-stolen natural gas condensate.
- This action is the third filed in this court, consolidated with prior BASF and Big Star actions; related matters were addressed at a June 8, 2012 scheduling conference.
- Several motions to dismiss were granted to the extent they sought dismissal of Mexican-law-based claims for illegal possession and use of sovereign property; standing-related issues narrowed the remaining disputes.
- Remaining disputes include pending motions to designate responsible third parties and motions regarding standing to assert indirect, assigned claims from AGE, Flint Hills, and Valero.
- Court held that the indirect, assigned claims lack standing and are moot for third-party designation, while direct claims may proceed with designated third parties.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do PEP's assigned claims have standing? | PEP contends assignors’ involvement supports standing. | Assignors suffered no injury-in-fact traceable to defendants; standing fails. | PEP lacks standing to assert assigned claims. |
| Are the third-party assignments valid under Texas public policy? | Assignments enable recovery by PEP. | Assignments are invalid, collusive, and distort litigation. | Assignments invalid under Texas public-policy doctrine; moot for indirect claims. |
| Do the assignments improperly preserve contribution rights against non-settling defendants? | Claims are for breach of warranty/contract under UCC; not mere contribution. | Assignments function as improper preservation of contribution against non-settling parties. | Assignments are invalid as attempts to preserve contribution rights against non-settling defendants. |
| Should the court designate responsible third parties for PEP’s claims? | Designation should be denied due to lack of specificity and against policy. | Designation should be granted to identify those who caused or contributed to damages. | Moot for indirect claims; granted for direct claims against FR Midstream, Shell, Sunoco, ConocoPhillips, and Marathon. |
| What is the appropriate standard and procedure for designation of responsible third parties under Texas law? | Procedural deficiencies and overbreadth impede designation. | Chapter 33 pleading standards require some identification of at least potential responsibility. | Standards outlined; subsequent decisions grant/deny leave to designate third parties accordingly. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (three elements of standing)
- State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Gandy, 925 S.W.2d 696 (Tex. 1996) (assignment/public-policy invalidity; damages in public-policy contexts)
- Beec h Aircraft Corp. v. Jinkins, 739 S.W.2d 19 (Tex. 1987) (settlements and preservation of contribution rights; public policy)
- Jackson v. Thweatt, 883 S.W.2d 171 (Tex. 1994) (assignments and ripeness of claims; implied contribution analysis)
- Gulf Insurance Co. v. Burns Motors, Inc., 22 S.W.3d 417 (Tex. 2000) (assignees stand in assignors’ shoes; injury must be traceable)
- Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. v. Marketing on Hold Inc., 308 S.W.3d 909 (Tex. 2010) (assignment of contract rights; standing considerations)
- Barrera-Montenegro v. United States, 74 F.3d 657 (5th Cir. 1996) (standard for Rule 12(b)(1) and jurisdiction)
- Harold H. Huggins Realty, Inc. v. FNC, Inc., 634 F.3d 787 (5th Cir. 2011) (standing and jurisdiction considerations in Fifth Circuit)