Slant Operating LLC and Slant WTX Holdings II, LLC v. Octane Energy Operating, LLC

Slant Operating, 2025 Tex. Bus. 52 (Business Court of Texas Eighth Division 2025) · Business Court of Texas, Eighth Division · December 22, 2025 · No. 24-BC08A-0002

Summary

The Texas Business Court, Eighth Division, held that Slant WTX Holdings II, LLC was not a third-party beneficiary of a reciprocal waiver agreement between Slant Operating LLC and Octane Energy Operating, LLC. The court sustained Octane’s plea to the jurisdiction and dismissed Slant Holdings’ claims for lack of standing, while denying as moot Octane’s no-evidence motion for summary judgment. The court reaffirmed its jurisdiction over the remaining lawsuit and denied the plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment.

Holdings

  1. Slant WTX Holdings II, LLC was not a third-party beneficiary of the Letter Agreement and therefore lacked standing to assert or recover on a breach-of-contract claim against Octane.
  2. The parties' roles as oil and gas operators and compliance with Texas Railroad Commission Statewide Rule 86 did not establish that Slant WTX Holdings was an intended third-party beneficiary of the Letter Agreement.
  3. Once the Business Court lawfully acquired jurisdiction over the action, dismissal of Slant WTX Holdings' claims did not divest the court of jurisdiction or authority to adjudicate the remaining claims.
  4. Slant WTX Holdings was not a third-party creditor beneficiary because the record did not show that performance of the Letter Agreement would satisfy an indebtedness, contractual obligation, or other legally enforceable commitment owed by Slant Operating to Slant WTX Holdings.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Slant WTX Holdings II, LLC had standing to assert a breach-of-contract claim as a third-party beneficiary of the reciprocal waiver agreement.
  2. Whether the agreement, the parties' operator roles, Texas Railroad Commission Statewide Rule 86, or the alleged financial unity among the Slant entities established third-party-beneficiary status.
  3. Whether dismissal of one plaintiff's claims divested the Business Court of jurisdiction over the remainder of the action.
  4. Whether Slant WTX Holdings II, LLC was entitled to partial summary judgment declaring it a third-party creditor beneficiary.

Disposition

other

Cases Cited (28)

  • Tex. Ass’n of Bus. v. Tex. Air Control Bd., 852 S.W.2d 440, 445-46 (Tex. 1993)(followed)
  • Austin Nursing Ctr., Inc. v. Lovato, 171 S.W.3d 845, 848-49 (Tex. 2005)(followed)
  • In re K.K.C., 292 S.W.3d 788, 790 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2009, no pet.)(followed)
  • Tex. Dep’t of Transp. v. Jones, 8 S.W.3d 636, 637 (Tex. 1999) (per curiam)(followed)
  • Sampson v. Univ. of Tex. at Austin, 500 S.W.3d 380, 384 (Tex. 2016)(followed)
  • Tex. Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217, 226-28 (Tex. 2004)(followed)
  • Bland Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Blue, 34 S.W.3d 547, 555 (Tex. 2000)(followed)
  • Apollo Expl., LLC v. Apache Corp., 631 S.W.3d 502, 515 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2021), rev’d in part on other grounds, 670 S.W.3d 319 (Tex. 2023)(followed)
  • Eagle Oil & Gas Co. v. TRO-X, L.P., 619 S.W.3d 699, 705 (Tex. 2021)(followed)
  • Lujan v. Navistar, Inc., 555 S.W.3d 79, 84 (Tex. 2018)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 28.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…