Saga Petroleum, LLC v. Arrowhead Drilling, LLC et al, No. 1:2008cv00110 - Document 44 (D. Mont. 2010)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 40 Findings and Recommendations by Magistrate Ostby, 36 Motion to Strike, filed by Arrowhead Drilling, LLC is DENIED as moot; 29 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Arrowhead Oil & Gas Drilling is DENIED. Signed by Judge Richard F. Cebull on 5/26/2010. (CAA, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Saga Petroleum, LLC v. Arrowhead Drilling, LLC et al Doc. 44 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA BILLINGS DIVISION FI LED ;010 flAy 26 P!'l 2 til BY _ __ DEPUTY c CV-08-110-BLG-RFC-CSO SAGA PETROLEUM, LLC, Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE vs. ARROWHEAD DRILLING, LLC, and BILL MAXWELL, Defendants. ARROWHEAD OIL & GAS DRILLING, a Montana Joint Venture of Arrowhead Drilling, LLC and B&D Oil & Gas, Inc., Counterclaimant & Third-Party Plaintiff, vs. SAGA PETROLEUM, LLC, SAGA PETROLEUM CORPORATION, and PUBLIC GAS PARTNERS, INC., Counterclaim Defendant & Third-Party Defendants, respectively.. -1- Dockets.Justia.com On March 11, 2010, United States Magistrate Judge Carolyn Ostby entered Findings and Recommendation. Magistrate Judge Ostby recommends Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [Doc. 29] be denied and Defendants' Motion to Strike Affidavit of Peter Mueller [Doc. 36] be denied as moot. Upon service ofa magistrate judge's findings and recommendation, a party has 14 days to file written objections. 28 U.s.C. § 636(b)(I). In this matter, no party filed objections to the March 11,2010 Findings and Recommendation. Failure to object to a magistrate judge's findings and recommendation waives all objections to the fmdings offact. Turnerv. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1999). However, failure to object does not relieve this Court of its burden to review de novo the magistrate judge's conclusions oflaw. Barilla v. Ervin, 886 F.2d 1514, 1518 (9th Cir. 1989). After an extensive review of the record and applicable law, this Court finds Magistrate Judge Ostby'S Findings and Recommendation are wdl grounded in law and fact and adopts them in their entirety. Arrowhead seeks summary judgment on the grounds that Plaintiff, Saga Petroleum, LLC (Saga), cannot set forth a prima facie case for alleged misrepresentations with respect to an oral agreement and breach of contract -2- concerning the drilling of natural gas wells. Further, Arrowhead requests summary judgment be entered in its favor on Count II of its counterclaim and all third party claims. A party is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law if "the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with affidavits, if any, show there is no genuine issue as to any material fact." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); see Bahn v. NME Hasps., Inc., 929 F.2d 1404, 1409 (9th Cir.1991). The moving party carries the initial burden ofproofand meets this burden by identifYing portions of the record on file that demonstrate the absence of any genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-24, 106 S.Ct. 2548,91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). Once the initial burden is satisfied, the burden shifts to the non-moving party to demonstrate through the production of probative evidence that there remains an issue of fact to be tried. Id. The court must view the evidence in the light most to the non-moving party. Fairbank v. Wunderman Cato Johnson, 212 F.3d 528, 531 (9th Cir.2000) (citations omitted). All reasonable doubt as to the existence ofa genuine issue of fact should be resolved against the moving party. MetroPCS, Inc. v. City and Co. ofSan Fran., 400 F.3d 715, 720 (9th Cir.2005) (citation omitted). Where different -3- ultimate inferences may be drawn, summary judgment is inappropriate. Sankovich v. Ins. Co. olN. Am., 638 F.2d 136, 140 (9th Cir.1981) (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)). However, the non-moving party "must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e). The "mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in support of the [non-moving party's] position would be insufficient." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 252, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). Where "the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the non-moving party, there is no genuine issue for trial." Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587,106 S.Ct. 1348,89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986). This Court agrees with Judge Ostby's conclusion that Saga has consistently raised sufficient issues to preclude summary judgment. There are factual issues in this case better left to a jury. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 1. Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgmem [Doc. No. 29] is DENIED. 2. Defendants' Motion to Strike Affidavit of Peter Mueller, Plaintiffs' Exhibits A and B and Deposition Exhibits 62 and 80 [Doc. No. 36] is DENIED as moot. -4- The Clerk ofCour\i;4:1J;ill notifY the parties of the entry of this Order. HW\ DATED the;2.£ day of May, 2010. -5-
]]>
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.
