In Re: Oracle Oil, L.L.C., No. 19-30519 (5th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 19-30519 Document: 00515301742 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/07/2020 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 19-30519 United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED In the Matter of: ORACLE OIL, L.L.C., Debtor. February 7, 2020 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk ORACLE OIL, L.L.C., Appellant, versus EPI CONSULTANTS, A Division of Cudd Pressure Control, Incorporated, Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana No. 2:18-CV-3674 Before JOLLY, SMITH, and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Plaintiff Oracle Oil, L.L.C., solely owned by Robert Brooks, operated an Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. * Case: 19-30519 Document: 00515301742 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/07/2020 No. 19-30519 oil well. As debtor in this bankruptcy proceeding, Oracle seeks damages from EPI Consultants for alleged breach of contract and negligence in connection with EPI’s consulting services on the well. Oracle alleges that, because of EPI’s actions, Oracle suffered expenses and loss of future profits from the well. EPI avers that Oracle cannot establish that it is entitled to any damages. EPI contends that Brooks’s other companies—not Oracle—paid all invoices for the well’s expenses. But Oracle claims that Brooks, through oral contracts with himself acting on behalf of his companies, directed the payments on the understanding that Oracle would be obligated to reimburse the other companies. EPI points out that Louisiana law requires that, in addition to Brooks’s testimony, Oracle must present “corroborating evidence” that the contract existed; Oracle has provided none. EPI moved for summary judgment. Concluding that Oracle could not establish that it had sustained damages, the district court granted the motion. We have examined the briefs, the applicable law, and pertinent parts of the record and have heard the oral arguments of counsel. The district court properly granted summary judgment as explained primarily in its comprehensive Order and Reasons entered on June 6, 2019. The judgment is AFFIRMED, essentially for the reasons set forth in that order. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
