MDL Class Action Antitrust Litigation
Obtained summary judgment for Fortune 500 company in multi-district class action antitrust litigation.
Obtained summary judgment for Fortune 500 company in multi-district class action antitrust litigation.
Obtained summary judgment for third party defendant in a class action involving indemnification claims exceeding $100 million.
In an action involving foreign litigants, obtained favorable trial court decision dismissing client based on forum non conveniens which dismissal was upheld by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Represented insurer in action before Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals and obtained reversal of trial court with instruction for district court to enter judgment in favor of defendant on bad faith claims.
In action representing employer, obtained summary judgment in favor of client/employer in claim involving sexual harassment and retaliation in violation of Title VII.
In action by Plaintiff alleging age discrimination and related employment claims obtained favorable trial court rulings.
A producer behind one of Superior’s gas processing plants claimed entitlement to a percentage of Superior’s condensate proceeds even though the contract did not require it. Superior won in district court, the producer appealed, but Oklahoma’s Court of Civil Appeals affirmed judgment for Superior. On June 2nd, the Oklahoma Supreme Court denied the producer’s Petition for Certiorari (Case No. 111,373). In addition, the court also awarded Superior 100% of its attorneys’ fees, just under $200,000.00.
GableGotwals secured a unanimous victory from the Oklahoma Supreme Court regarding the necessity of takings under the power of eminent domain. The Firm’s client, a FERC interstate natural gas pipeline, brought a condemnation action to acquire additional easement rights, including access easements over existing roads because the existing agreements between the parties did not provide reliable access to the pipelines and facilities for erosion control and maintenance work. The landowner challenged the necessity of the taking, arguing that the preexisting easements preempted any later exercise of eminent domain and that the taking did not meet the legal standard of necessity for public use. The Oklahoma Supreme Court rejected the landowner’s arguments and ruled in favor of the Firm’s client. In affirming the district court’s ruling, the Oklahoma Supreme Court upheld well settled law that the right of eminent domain cannot be contracted away, meaning that preexisting easements do not prevent later exercise of eminent domain. The Court also reiterated that condemning authorities, such as pipelines, have wide discretion in determining the location and routes of their easements. The Court concluded that the easement rights sought in the condemnation action were necessary for the public use.