Summary of Decision September 21, 2011
[SPECIAL NOTE:
This opinion uses the "Universal Citation." It was given an "official" citation
when it is issued. You should use this
citation whenever you cite the opinion, with a P.3d parallel citation. You will also note when you look at the
opinion that all of the paragraphs are numbered. When you need to provide a pinpoint citation
to a quote the universal portion of the citation will use that paragraph
number. The pinpoint citation in the
P.3d portion will need to have the reporter page number. If you need assistance
in putting together a citation from this, or any future opinion using the
Universal Citation form, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library and we
will provide any needed assistance]
Summaries are prepared by Law Librarians and
are not official statements of the Wyoming Supreme Court
Case Name:
Grynberg v. L&R Exploration
Citation:
2011 WY 134
Docket Number: S-11-0037
Appeal from the District Court of Sweetwater
County, The Honorable Jere A. Ryckman, Judge
Representing
Appellant (Plaintiff): William L. Hiser,
Brown & Hiser, LLC, Laramie, Wyoming; Jon Aimone, Lemich Law Center, Rock
Springs, Wyoming. Argument by Mr. Hiser.
Representing Appellee
(Defendants): Paula A. Fleck, Holland
& Hart LLP, Jackson, Wyoming; Steve Andersen, Holland & Hart LLP,
Boise, Idaho; Christina F. Gomez, Holland & Hart LLP, Denver,
Colorado. Argument by Mr. Andersen.
Date of Decision: September 21, 2011
Facts: Appellant
and her husband are co-owners of a petroleum company registered in the State of
Utah that has been involved in acquiring, exploring, developing, and producing
oil and natural gas fields. In 1960, Appellant’s
husband and several individuals entered into a joint venture agreement for the
purpose of developing oil and natural gas fields primarily in Wyoming. Originally, Appellant’s husband had a 41.5%
interest in the gas field and Appellee owned the remaining 58.5% interest. In the 1990s, Appellant’s husband assigned
99% of his interest in the gas field to Appellant.
Over the years, Appellant and Appellee entered
into agreements authorizing Appellant’s company to recover damages for Appellee’s
interests in the gas field by filing suit against various entities. In exchange for pursuing Appellee’s claims
and advancing the costs and fees of litigation, Appellant was to receive a
percentage of any amounts recovered. In
2000, an accountant for Appellee raised questions concerning Appellant’s
husband’s accountings and payments to the joint venture participants. When Appellant’s husband learned that he was
being questioned, he and Appellant filed suit against Appellee in their home
state of Colorado. In response to the
Colorado action, Appellee filed a petition in New York seeking a court order
compelling the Appellant and her husband to arbitrate the dispute in accordance
with the arbitration provisions contained in the joint venture agreement.
The New York court granted the motion to the
extent that it dismissed Appellant from the proceeding, denied the motion as to
Appellant’s husband, granted Appellee’s arbitration petition and ordered
Appellant’s husband “and all others acting on his behalf” to refrain from
initiating any court proceedings in Colorado.
Appellant’s husband appealed up to NewYork’s highest court, but both
courts rejected the appeal and affirmed the order.
Less
than two months later, Appellant filed a complaint in Colorado state district
court identical to the earlier Colorado complaint except that Appellant’s
husband was not named as a plaintiff. Finding
that the two complaints involved “identical claims and facts,” the Colorado
court consolidated the cases and entered an order staying them until resolution
of the New York proceedings. The Colorado
court also found Appellant’s actions frivolous and awarded attorney’s fees and
costs.
After seven years, the arbitration panel
unanimously concluded that Appellant’s husband had violated his fiduciary and
accounting responsibilities and awarded Appellee substantial damages plus
interest. Appellant’s husband paid only part
of the judgment, to Appellant, specifically the amount owing to her as assignee
of his interest in Appellee. Appellant’s
husband failed to pay the balance and Appellee subsequently filed an action in
Colorado to collect the unpaid portion. Appellant’s husband objected to the
judgment. The Colorado district court
rejected the objection. Appellant’s
husband appealed, and The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed its district
court’s decision.
Meanwhile, Appellant filed a complaint in
Wyoming for declaratory relief, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and
conversion against Appellee and numerous individuals and entities having an
interest in the Appellee joint venture, claiming that the Appellee owed her
compensation for services provided, and that she is entitled to payment of
those amounts. Appellee moved to dismiss
the complaint under Wyoming Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) or, in the
alternative, for summary judgment under Rule 56. The district court granted summary judgment
for Appellee and dismissed the complaint on the basis of res judicata, finding
that Appellant was in privity with parties involved in prior litigation in
Colorado and New York, and that her complaint involved the same subject matter
and issues resolved in those proceedings.
Appellant appealed, claiming the district court erred in holding that her
claims were barred. After she had filed
her appellate brief, the New York Supreme Court issued a decision finding Appellant’s
husband in contempt for colluding with Appellant to bring this action in
Wyoming in violation of its order to refrain from further litigation involving Appellee
and the issues before the arbitration panel.
Issues: 1) Whether the district court properly
entered summary judgment for Appellee when Appellee failed to file a separate
statement of material facts demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue for
trial as required by W.R.C.P. 56.1; and 2) Whether the district court correctly
concluded that Appellant’s claims are barred by the doctrine of res
judicata. Appellee re-stated the issues
and asked the Court to award it attorney fees and costs in defending this
appeal.
Holdings: The Court affirmed and awarded attorneys fees
and costs.
As to the first
issue, the Court held that Rule 56.1 is clear that upon filing any motion for
summary judgment under Rule 56, a separate statement of material facts with
pinpoint citations supporting the motion is required. However, while the Court did not condone Appellee’s
failure to comply with Rule 56.1, the Court concluded that the district court
properly exercised its authority in determining that Appellant waived her
objection to its consideration of Appellee’s motion and supporting materials
when Appellant did not raise it until after the court had considered the
materials and issued a ruling.
As to the issue of
res judicata, the Court found the issues and subject matter here identical to
that raised in the New York and Colorado courts and resolved in New York after
a seven day evidentiary hearing and numerous appeals. The Court found that
those issues had been fully and finally resolved. The Court held that Appellant, as the
assignee of her husband’s interest in the joint venture, had received payment
of her proportionate share, and pursuant
to the New York judgment, as co-owner of the petroleum company, she was not
entitled to payment of anything from Appellee. Appellant was in privity with her
husband as the assignee of his interest and, as co-owner of the petroleum
company, is bound by the prior rulings.
The Court also held
that, in light of the lengthy New York proceedings, the orders staying and
prohibiting other proceedings, and the contempt order, Appellant had no
reasonable cause for this appeal and Appellee was entitled to attorney fees and
costs.
C.J. Kite delivered the opinion for the court.
