Ritter, Laber and Associates, Inc.; Elizabeth Cantarine, Personal Representative of the Estate of Eugene A. Burdick; and Russell L. Kiker v. Koch Oil, Inc., a division of Koch Industries, Inc.

Summary

The Supreme Court of North Dakota reviewed a summary judgment dismissing class-action claims against Koch Oil for conversion, unjust enrichment, and an accounting, as well as the denial of a motion to amend the complaint to add breach of contract. The court held that disputed issues of material fact supported the conversion claim and an accounting, while the contractual relationships precluded unjust enrichment and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying amendment. The court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

Holdings

1. Claims for conversion and breach of contract may arise from the same facts. The plaintiffs' allegations that Koch wrongfully deprived them of excess unreported oil and the proceeds from its sale stated a potential conversion claim independent of contractual liability.
2. The plaintiffs could not recover under unjust enrichment because their contractual relationships defined their rights concerning the oil and proceeds. Express contracts precluded the claims of plaintiffs who contracted directly with Koch, and the lack of a direct benefit at the plaintiffs' expense precluded the claims of plaintiffs who contracted through producers.
3. Because the conversion claim was reinstated, the plaintiffs had an equitable basis for seeking an accounting, and dismissal of the accounting request was improper.
4. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying the plaintiffs' motion to amend the complaint to add a breach-of-contract claim.

Questions Presented

1. Whether disputed issues of material fact precluded summary judgment on the plaintiffs' conversion claim.
2. Whether the parties' contractual relationships precluded the plaintiffs' unjust-enrichment claims.
3. Whether the plaintiffs were entitled to an accounting after the conversion claim survived summary judgment.
4. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying the plaintiffs' motion to amend the complaint to add a breach-of-contract claim.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded