Kevin L. Jeter; Joe A. Jeter; Barbara Lucas; James H. Miller; Sharon Rigsby Miller; Larry Smith; Janice Sue Parker v. Vetsus Wild West Gas, LLC; Wild West Gas, Inc.; Bullseye Energy, LLC; Fountainhead, LLC; KRS&K; CEP Mid-Continent, LLC; Robert M. Kane; Louise Kane Roark; Ann Kane Seidman; Mark Kane; Pamela Brown; Gary Brown; Gashoma, Inc.; Purgatory Creek Gas, Inc.; Redbird Oil; White Hawk Gas, Inc.

Summary

In this consolidated action, the court addresses motions by Bullseye Energy, KRS&K, and CEP Mid-Continent for attorneys’ fees after prevailing on claims involving alleged contract, royalty, fraud, and RICO violations. The court denies the supplemental fee motion as untimely and concludes that fees may be awarded under Oklahoma’s Production Revenue Standards Act without a showing of bad faith. It applies reductions for fees attributable to nonmoving defendants, non-fee-bearing claims, and other inadequately supported work, and awards a substantially reduced amount of attorneys’ fees.

Holdings

1. A pro se litigant may conduct his own case personally but may not represent or assert arguments on behalf of other parties.
2. A district court may decide a post-judgment motion for attorneys' fees while an appeal is pending because the fee determination is a collateral procedural and ministerial matter.
3. Bad faith or litigation misconduct is not a prerequisite to an award of reasonable attorneys' fees when a statute expressly authorizes prevailing-party fees under the Production Revenue Standards Act.
4. The motion to supplement the attorneys' fee request was untimely because it was filed outside Rule 54(d)(2)(B)'s fourteen-day deadline and was therefore denied.
5. A fee award must be limited to reasonable fees attributable to the moving defendants' defense of fee-bearing claims and must be apportioned among claims, parties, dismissed parties, settling parties, and nonmoving defendants.
6. CEP was not entitled to an additional fee award under Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 1101.1(B) because the requested fees were not shown to be separate from the fees already awarded and a double recovery was unavailable.

Questions Presented

1. Whether a pro se plaintiff who opposed the fee motion could make arguments on behalf of other plaintiffs.
2. Whether the district court retained jurisdiction to decide a post-judgment fee motion while an appeal was pending.
3. Whether Oklahoma's American Rule required proof of bad faith or litigation misconduct despite a statute expressly authorizing reasonable fees under the Production Revenue Standards Act.
4. Whether the defendants' supplemental fee motion was timely under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(2)(B).
5. What amount of attorneys' fees was reasonable and properly allocable to the moving defendants' defense of fee-bearing claims.
6. Whether CEP could obtain an additional award under Oklahoma's offer-of-judgment statute without duplicating the prevailing-party fee award.

Disposition

other