Free Amended Complaint - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case 1:00-cv-00512-FMA

Document 51

Filed 06/25/2008

Page 1 of 20

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS ______________________________________ ) PETRO-HUNT, L.L.C. ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Case No. 00-512L v. ) Judge Allegra ) THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Defendant. ) ______________________________________ ) FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Pursuant to the Rules of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, Petro-Hunt L.L.C., by counsel, respectfully submits its First Amended Complaint, and alleges as follows: PARTIES 1. Plaintiff, Petro-Hunt, L.L.C. ("Petro-Hunt"), a Limited Liability Company

organized under the laws of the State of Delaware having its principal place of business in Dallas, Texas, is primarily engaged in the business of oil and gas exploration and production as the owner and operator of mineral properties in and around the United States. 2. Defendant, United States of America, acting through the Department of Interior

and Department of Agriculture, is a republic formed pursuant to the U.S. Constitution, and exercising the powers therein subject to certain limitations including (1) the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits the taking of private property without payment of just compensation, (2) statutes, including the Tucker Act, that provide limited waivers of the government's sovereign immunity, and (3) regulations prescribing its authority. 3. Petro-Hunt is the owner of a 64.28572% undivided interest in a mineral estate 1

Case 1:00-cv-00512-FMA

Document 51

Filed 06/25/2008

Page 2 of 20

located in the Kisatchie National Forest.1 JURISDICTION 4. This court has jurisdiction of this case under 28 U.S.C. § 1491 (the Tucker Act) as

a "claim against the United States founded either upon the Constitution, or any Act of Congress or any regulation of an executive department or upon any express or implied contract with the United States..." seeking damages in excess of the minimum threshold. NATURE OF THE CASE 5. Plaintiff seeks a judgment and related damages for a taking of its property, in the

form of mineral rights, without just compensation and, alternatively, for breach of contract by the United States. 6. The United States made certain representations to land owners that mineral rights

which had already been transferred to another entity created by the land owners would remain in perpetuity with that entity if the land owners sold their surface rights to the United States. 7. The land owners relied on these representations in deciding to sell their surface

land to the United States for inclusion in the national forest system, and the compensation paid by the United States excluded the value of the mineral estate. 8. The United States, contrary to its representations and in breach of material implied

terms of the conveyances, subsequently sought to be declared the owner of the mineral estate without having paid just compensation. 9. Plaintiff now comes before this Court seeking a judgment and relief related to

claims arising under the Constitution and the Tucker Act.

1 The other co-owners of the mineral estate are Kingfisher Resources, Inc., which owns an 18.90756%

undivided interest, and Hunt Petroleum Corporation, which owns a 16.80672% undivided interest.

2

Case 1:00-cv-00512-FMA

Document 51

Filed 06/25/2008

Page 3 of 20

FACTS A. 10. Formation of the Mineral Estate Prior to 1932, Bodcaw Lumber Company of Louisiana ("Bodcaw Lumber"), Grant

Timber & Manufacturing Company of Louisiana, Inc. ("Grant Timber"), Good Pine Lumber Company of Louisiana, Inc., Trout Creek Lumber Company of Louisiana, Inc., and Tall Timber Lumber Company of Louisiana, Inc. separately owned large non-contiguous tracts of land located in Winn, Grant, and Natchitoches parishes in Louisiana. 11. These five lumber companies organized the Good Pine Oil Company ("Good Pine

Oil") on or about 1932 and vested it with the exclusive rights to explore mineral deposits in the subsurface of certain parcels of their land in Louisiana. 12. 13. Good Pine Oil was a joint venture of the five lumber companies. Pursuant to six mineral conveyances executed between November, 1932 through

May, 1934, Bodcaw Lumber and Grant Timber transferred their mineral rights in 180,000 acres of land to Good Pine Oil. See Exhibit 1. 14. Bodcaw Lumber and Grant Timber believed that valuable timber, oil, and gas

existed on and underneath the 180,000 acres conveyed to Good Pine Oil. 15. Bodcaw Lumber and Grant Timber reserved the surface rights to the 180,000

acres to themselves in the conveyances of the mineral rights to Good Pine Oil. See Exhibit 1. 16. Good Pine Oil was formed to pool the mineral rights of the five lumber companies

with respect to the overall parcels of land, including the 180,000 acres conveyed by Bodcaw Lumber and Grant Timber, to secure more favorable exploration and development. 17. The five lumber companies agreed that each would share in any production 3

Case 1:00-cv-00512-FMA

Document 51

Filed 06/25/2008

Page 4 of 20

obtained from the pooled acreage in proportion to the acreage that each lumber company contributed to the pool. 18. The deeds recited that the minerals were conveyed to Good Pine Oil, its

successors and assigns, forever and that the vendors (including Bodcaw Lumber and Grant Timber) intended to confer upon the vendee absolutely and without limit for time of its enjoyment any and every right, title and interest that the vendors had in the minerals conveyed. 19. The 180,000 non-contiguous acres contributed by Bodcaw Lumber and Grant

Timber constituted 96 mineral servitudes owned by Good Pine Oil and its successors and assigns.2 B. 20. Establishment of the U.S. National Forest System In 1911, Congress enacted enabling legislation (the "Weeks Act") to create the

U.S. Forest Service and authorizing it to purchase lands throughout the United States to establish the national forest system. 21. A federal entity known as the National Forest Reservation Commission ("NFRC")

was established to identify forest lands for acquisition. 22. The NFRC was the final authority for determining the forest lands to be bought

and the terms and conditions of sale. 23. The Weeks Act expressly allowed mineral reservations as consistent with the

purpose for which the land was acquired, i.e. the establishment of national forests.

2 A "servitude" is essentially a right of use. A mineral servitude conveys the right to explore for and

produce the minerals on the property. Common law states allow minerals to be permanently severed. There is no direct common-law equivalent to a Louisiana mineral servitude. Texaco v. La. Land & Exploration, 136 B.R. 658 (M.D. La. 1992). However, every other state allows minerals to be permanently severed from the surface.

4

Case 1:00-cv-00512-FMA

Document 51

Filed 06/25/2008

Page 5 of 20

24.

Section 9 of the Weeks Act states: "that such acquisition may in any case be

conditioned upon the exception and reservation to the owner from whom title passes to the United States of the minerals and of the merchantable timber, or either or any part of them within or upon such lands at the date of the conveyance..." 36 Stat. 962 c. 186, Sec. 9. 25. The NFRC had adopted the policy of purchasing lands subject to the reservation

of mineral rights in perpetuity. 26. The Commission had also taken the position that it was without authority to

purchase mineral rights with funds that had been appropriated for the acquisition of lands for national forest purposes. 27. The NFRC recognized that properties in Louisiana were likely to be subject to

mineral reservations, especially for oil and gas, given the known geological characteristics of the lands. C. 28. U.S. Government Experiences Difficulty Purchasing Lands In Louisiana Prior to the year 1936, the United States was interested in purchasing lands in

Louisiana for national forest purposes. 29. The United States found that owners of large tracts of land were unwilling to sell

their lands because of court decisions holding that the sale or reservation of mineral rights in Louisiana created only a "right in the nature of a servitude" which was subject to prescription by ten years non-use. 30. Duly authorized agents of the United States approached duly authorized

representatives of Bodcaw Lumber and Grant Timber seeking to acquire large tracts of land for inclusion in the national forest system. 5

Case 1:00-cv-00512-FMA

Document 51

Filed 06/25/2008

Page 6 of 20

31.

Upon information and belief, Bodcaw Lumber and Grant Timber refused to sell

based on their belief that their valuable mineral rights would prescribe from Good Pine Oil (the holder of the mineral estate), to the United States, and not to Bodcaw Lumber and Grant Timber, the private owners of the surface estate, if they sold their surface estates to the United States. 32. The United States Department of Agriculture did not agree that the Louisiana law

of prescription of mineral servitudes applied to purchases of land by the United States for the national forest system. 33. On May 29, 1935, the United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

produced an opinion of the Assistant Solicitor of the Department of Agriculture to Bodcaw Lumber and Grant Timber to the effect that the prescriptive provisions of the Louisiana Civil Code would not apply to lands sold to the United States for national forest purposes. 34. Upon information and belief, authorized agents of the United States represented to

Bodcaw Lumber and Grant Timber that the Louisiana law of prescription of mineral servitudes would not apply if they sold their lands to the United States prior to 1935. 35. These representations were intended to induce the sale of the surface estate by

Bodcaw Lumber and Grant Timber to the United States. 36. In reliance on these representations, Bodcaw Lumber and Grant Timber agreed to

sell to the United States the surface estate of various tracts of timber land. D. 37. Bodcaw Lumber and Grant Timber Sell their Surface Estate to the United States From November 1934 through January 1937, the United States, acting through the

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, acquired the surface rights, pursuant to the Weeks Act, to approximately 180,000 acres of land located in Grant, Winn and Natchitoches Parishes 6

Case 1:00-cv-00512-FMA

Document 51

Filed 06/25/2008

Page 7 of 20

from Bodcaw Lumber and Grant Timber. 38. These transactions were accomplished through eleven different conveyances --

nine deeds and two expropriation judgments. See Exhibit 2. 39. At the time of the acquisitions, all of the surface lands acquired by the United

States from Bodcaw Lumber and Grant Timber were burdened by the 96 mineral servitudes owned by Good Pine Oil. 40. These lands were purchased by the United States for inclusion in the Kisatchie

National Forest and were specifically conveyed to it subject to the prior sale of all the minerals by Bodcaw Lumber and Grant Timber to Good Pine Oil. 41. These deeds were designed to confer a benefit on Good Pine Oil and any

successors-in-interest by expressly excluding the mineral estate from the transactions. 42. The consideration paid by the United States under the various conveyances did not

include the value of any mineral rights in the 96 servitudes. 43. The minerals underlying the lands had previously been conveyed to Good Pine

Oil, which was owned by Bodcaw Lumber, Grant Timber, and others. 44. Bodcaw Lumber and Grant Timber did not own any minerals or mineral rights

that they could sell to the United States. 45. Bodcaw Lumber and Grant Timber could also not reserve or sell the expectation

of a servitude lapsed for non-use. 46. All that remained for Bodcaw Lumber and Grant Timber to sell to the United

States was the surface lands. 47. At the time the sales were made, the officers and directors of Bodcaw Lumber and 7

Case 1:00-cv-00512-FMA

Document 51

Filed 06/25/2008

Page 8 of 20

Grant Timber believed that the mineral rights in the lands sold were valuable and that the consideration paid by the United States for the surface lands acquired under the various deeds did not reflect the value of any mineral rights contained in the 96 servitudes. 48. Bodcaw Lumber and Grant Timber would not have sold the surface lands to the

United States had representatives of the United States then taken the position that the prescriptive provisions of the Louisiana Civil Code would be applicable to the minerals under the surface lands sold. 49. At the time the United States purchased the surface estate from Bodcaw Lumber

and Grant Timber, the United States knew and understood that it was not purchasing any of the minerals that had previously been sold to Good Pine Oil. 50. At the time the United States purchased the surface estate from Bodcaw Lumber

and Grant Timber, the United States knew and understood that its duly authorized representatives had concluded that the Louisiana law with respect to prescription of servitudes would not apply and the United States would not acquire title to the mineral estate. 51. On December 29, 1941, Good Pine Oil Company conveyed all of its mineral

interests in this property to William C. Brown, who, on January 20, 1942, conveyed all of his interests to Nebo Oil Company. See Exhibit 3. 52. Petro-Hunt, L.L.C is the owner of an approximately 64.3% undivided interest in

the mineral interests conveyed to Nebo Oil Company as a result of, inter alia, the conveyance and transactions listed on Exhibit 3 as a successor-in-interest.3 E. Federal Courts Deny United States' Claims to Ownership of the Mineral Estate

3 Hunt Petroleum and Kingfisher Resources own their respective undivided interests via the same

conveyances and transactions listed on Exhibit 3.

8

Case 1:00-cv-00512-FMA

Document 51

Filed 06/25/2008

Page 9 of 20

53.

In 1948, the United States filed suit for declaratory judgment in the Western

District of Louisiana asserting ownership to a portion of the mineral rights previously reserved in perpetuity to Nebo Oil Company ("Nebo Oil"), as the successor in interest to all of Good Pine Oil's mineral rights. 54. The United States argued that the mineral rights in a certain parcel had lapsed for

10 years non-use, and therefore under Louisiana law had prescribed to and were owned by the United States. 55. The United States' position in the declaratory judgment action was contrary to the

representations it made during negotiations for the sale of the surface lands, namely that the Louisiana law of prescription would not apply to lands acquired by the United States. 56. After a trial and appeal, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling that

Nebo Oil owned the mineral estate and held that the Louisiana law of prescription for 10 years' non-use did not apply. See United States v. Nebo Oil Co., 90 F. Supp. 73 (W.D. La. 1950), aff'd, 190 F.2d 1003 (5th Cir. 1951). 57. Subsequent to the Fifth Circuit's decision, Nebo Oil placed an affidavit in the land

records of Louisiana wherein it claimed title to all of the property described in Exhibit 4 (hereinafter "Plaintiff's Mineral Estate").4 This is the same property conveyed to Good Pine Oil through the six conveyance instruments described in Exhibit 1. 58. The land records of the United States Forest Service also reflected that the

minerals underlying the land conveyed to it by the instruments described in Exhibit 2 were held

4 Said affidavit of ownership can be found in Conveyance Book 99, Folio 93, Entry No. 47969, in the records of Grant Parish; Conveyance Book 73, Folio 314, Entry No. 49398, in the records of Winn Parish; and Conveyance Book 216, Folio 331, Entry No. 97034, in the records of Natchitoches Parish. Grant, Winn and Natchitoches Parishes are all located within the State of Louisiana.

9

Case 1:00-cv-00512-FMA

Document 51

Filed 06/25/2008

Page 10 of 20

in ownership by others in perpetuity up to and including the year 2000. 59. Petro-Hunt and its predecessors-in-interest exercised their ownership of Plaintiff's

Mineral Estate in a manner consistent with the Fifth Circuit's holding in U.S. v. Nebo Oil Company, 190 F.2d 1003 (5th Cir. 1951). F. The United States Disregards the Fifth Circuit's Nebo Oil Decision and Conveyances Reserving Mineral Rights to Petro-Hunt by Issuing Mineral Leases on the Servitudes Owned by Petro-Hunt The United States, acting through the Department of the Interior's Bureau of Land

60.

Management ("BLM") and the Department of Agriculture's Forest Service, issued mineral leases to third parties to certain lands in the Kisatchie National Forest within Plaintiff's Mineral Estate that were burdened by the 96 mineral servitudes that originally ran in favor of Good Pine Oil, followed by its successors-in-interest ending in Petro-Hunt at various times. 61. Petro-Hunt, along with its co-owners, disputed the issuance of these leases as they

affected mineral rights within Plaintiff's Mineral Estate, which had been preserved in perpetuity per the deeds of conveyance to Good Pine Oil and the Fifth Circuit's decision in Nebo Oil. 62. Petro-Hunt along with its co-owners pursued relief through administrative process

before the U.S. Department of the Interior. 63. The United States continued to issue leases for land within Plaintiff's Mineral

Estate despite Petro-Hunt's objections. 64. The United States received valuable lease payments for land within Plaintiff's

Mineral Estate. 65. Plaintiff was prevented from exercising its full use and enjoyment of its Mineral

Estate during the period in which the United States issued the mineral leases and was deprived of 10

Case 1:00-cv-00512-FMA

Document 51

Filed 06/25/2008

Page 11 of 20

valuable economic activity, including but not limited to exploration, leasing, and sales. G. 66. Litigation Arising From the United States' Issuance of the Mineral Leases In response to BLM's issuance of the mineral leases, Petro-Hunt, along with other

co-owners of Plaintiff's Mineral Estate, brought suit under the Quiet Title Act on February 18, 2000 in the Western District of Louisiana seeking a declaration that it was the owner in perpetuity of Plaintiff's Mineral Estate (the "Quiet Title action"). 67. Later that same year, on August 24, 2000, Petro-Hunt filed a Complaint in this

Court alleging facts similar to those alleged in this First Amended Complaint, and arising from the same transactions, acts and occurrences, requesting just compensation under the Fifth Amendment. 68. The Court granted a stay in this case on Petro-Hunt's motion pending the outcome

of the Quiet Title action. 69. The Fifth Circuit ultimately held in the Quiet Title action that Plaintiff remained

the owner of 5 servitudes and the United States owned 91 servitudes. 70. The United States did not dispute that the Plaintiff, via various conveyances, is a

successor-in-interest to the mineral servitudes that had been previously owned by Good Pine Oil and later Nebo Oil Company, in the Quiet Title action. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF Count I ­ Permanent Taking of the Ninety-Six Servitudes 71. 72. Plaintiff incorporates the allegations raised in the preceding paragraphs (¶¶ 1 -70). The U.S. Constitution requires that the United States pay just compensation to

private property owners for all property taken for public use. 11

Case 1:00-cv-00512-FMA

Document 51

Filed 06/25/2008

Page 12 of 20

73.

To date, the United States has paid nothing to Petro-Hunt or any of its

predecessors-in-interest for the valuable mineral estate it has taken for public use in violation of the U.S. Constitution. 74. As a result of its acts and omissions, the United States has permanently taken the

96 servitudes previously owned by Petro-Hunt, which pursuant to the representations of the government were not subject to prescription, less and except the value of the servitudes which the Fifth Circuit held were now subject to prescription. 75. Petro-Hunt has been damaged as a result of the United States' conduct in an amount

to be determined equal to the just compensation due under the Fifth Amendment. 76. Petro-Hunt brings this action seeking an award of just compensation under the

Fifth Amendment to the Constitution for the value of mineral rights owned by plaintiff that have been taken by the United States without compensation. Count II ­ Temporary Taking of the Ninety-One Servitudes 77. 78. Plaintiff incorporates the allegations raised in the preceding paragraphs (¶¶ 1 - 70). The U.S. Constitution requires that the United States pay just compensation to

private property owners for all property taken for public use. 79. To date, the United States had paid nothing to Petro-Hunt or any of its

predecessors-in-interest for the valuable mineral estate it has taken for public use in violation of the U.S. Constitution. 80. The United States engaged in a temporary taking by asserting ownership of the 91

servitudes before and during the Quiet Title action. 81. The United States engaged in a temporary taking by issuing mineral leases to third

parties that were then within the Plaintiff's Mineral Estate. 12

Case 1:00-cv-00512-FMA

Document 51

Filed 06/25/2008

Page 13 of 20

82.

The United States' position effectively blocked Petro-Hunt from engaging in any

activity on the servitudes, precluded Petro-Hunt from leasing activity, and diminished the value to prospective buyers. 83. Petro-Hunt has been damaged as a result of the United States' conduct in an amount

to be determined equal to the just compensation due under the Fifth Amendment. During the temporary taking, the United States received valuable lease payments for property then owned by Petro-Hunt. 84. Petro-Hunt brings this action seeking an award of just compensation under the

Fifth Amendment to the Constitution for the value of mineral rights owned by plaintiff which have been taken by the United States. Count III ­ Temporary Taking of the Five Servitudes 85. 86. Plaintiff incorporates the allegations raised in the preceding paragraphs (¶¶ 1 - 70). The U.S. Constitution requires that the United States pay just compensation to

private property owners for all property taken for public use. 87. To date, the United States has paid nothing to Petro-Hunt or any of its

predecessors-in-interest for the valuable mineral estate it has taken for public use in violation of the U.S. Constitution. 88. The United States engaged in a temporary taking by asserting ownership of the 5

servitudes before and during the Quiet Title action. 89. The United States engaged in a temporary taking by issuing mineral leases to third

parties that were within the Plaintiff's Mineral Estate. 90. The United States effectively blocked Petro-Hunt from engaging in any activity on

the 5 servitudes, precluded Petro-Hunt from leasing activity, and diminished the value to 13

Case 1:00-cv-00512-FMA

Document 51

Filed 06/25/2008

Page 14 of 20

prospective buyers. 91. During the temporary taking, the United States received valuable lease payments

for property owned by Petro-Hunt. 92. Petro-Hunt has been damaged as a result of the United States' conduct in an amount

to be determined equal to the just compensation due under the Fifth Amendment. Count IV ­ Breach of Contract 93. 94. Plaintiff incorporates the allegations raised in the preceding paragraphs (¶¶ 1 - 70). Plaintiff, as a successor-in-interest to Good Pine Oil, the alter ego of Bodcaw

Lumber and Grant Timber, which were parties to the conveyances of the surface estates to the United States, has complied in all material respects with its obligations under the various land and mineral conveyances. 95. The United States, as a party to those land conveyances, has breached its

obligations by repudiating material terms of the parties' agreement and understanding with respect to the reservations of the mineral estate to Good Pine Oil, its successors and assigns, including Plaintiff. 96. The United States' breach of contract entitles Plaintiff to (a) restitution damages

equal to the value of the mineral estate acquired without payment by the United States; (b) reliance damages equal to the value of the mineral estate acquired without payment by the United States; (c) expectation damages equal to the profits that Plaintiff would have earned from the development of the mineral estate had the United States not committed a breach; (d) damages sustained by Petro-Hunt resulting from the United States' anticipatory repudiation of the terms and conditions of sale for the various tracts; and (e) other appropriate contract damages for losses sustained by Petro-Hunt as the result of wrongful acts by the United States. 14

Case 1:00-cv-00512-FMA

Document 51

Filed 06/25/2008

Page 15 of 20

Count V ­ Breach of Contract for Implied Third-Party Beneficiary or Stipulation Pour Autri 97. 98. Plaintiff incorporates the allegations raised in the preceding paragraphs (¶¶ 1 - 70). In the alternative, Plaintiff as a third party beneficiary of the conveyances of the

surface estate from Bodcaw Lumber and Grant Timber to the United States, has complied in all material respects with its obligations under the various mineral conveyances. 99. Plaintiff specifically pleads and claims the benefit of Louisiana law regarding

Stipulation Pour Autri, pursuant to Louisiana Civil Code Articles 1978-1982. 100. The United States, as a party to the conveyances from Bodcaw Lumber and Grant

Timber, has breached its obligations to Plaintiff, an intended third-party beneficiary, by repudiating the material terms of the agreement and understanding between Bodcaw Lumber and Grant Timber, on the one hand, and the United States, on the other hand, with respect to recognizing that the mineral rights were to be retained in perpetuity by Good Pine Oil and its successors-in-interest. 101. The United States' breach of contract entitles Plaintiff to (a) restitution damages

equal to the value of the mineral estate acquired without payment by the United States; (b) reliance damages equal to the value of the mineral estate acquired without payment by the United States; (c) expectation damages equal to the profits that Plaintiff would have earned from the development of the mineral estate had the United States not committed a breach; (d) damages sustained by Petro-Hunt resulting from the United States' anticipatory repudiation of the terms and conditions of sale for the various tracts; and (e) other appropriate contract damages for losses sustained by Petro-Hunt as the result of wrongful acts by the United States. Count VI ­ Breach of the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing 15

Case 1:00-cv-00512-FMA

Document 51

Filed 06/25/2008

Page 16 of 20

102. 103.

Plaintiff incorporates the allegations raised in the preceding paragraphs (¶¶ 1 - 70). In the alternative, Petro-Hunt seeks money damages and other appropriate relief in

its capacity as a party in privity or as a third party beneficiary to the conveyances of land to the United States arising from Defendant's breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. 104. Plaintiff has complied in all material respects with its obligations under the various

mineral conveyances. 105. The United States, as a party to those conveyances, has breached its obligations to

Plaintiff, either as the party in privity or as an intended third-party beneficiary, by repudiating the material terms of the agreement and understanding between Bodcaw Lumber and Grant Timber, on the one hand, and the United States, on the other hand, with respect to recognizing that the mineral rights were to be retained in perpetuity by Good Pine Oil and its successors-in-interest. 106. The representations made by the United States to Bodcaw Lumber and Grant

Timber, that the mineral estate would not prescribe, were made with the intent to induce Bodcaw Lumber and Grant Timber to sell the surface estate to the United States. 107. The representations made by the United States to Bodcaw Lumber and Grant

Timber, that the mineral estate would not prescribe, directly resulted in the sale of the surface estate to the United States. 108. The United States later claimed ownership of certain of Plaintiff's Mineral Estate

in 1948, contrary to the very representations made by its duly authorized agents on or around the date of the sale of the surface estate of the various tracts of land. 109. The United States then issued leases for certain parts of Plaintiff's Mineral Estates

despite the Fifth Circuit's ruling in Nebo Oil. 16

Case 1:00-cv-00512-FMA

Document 51

Filed 06/25/2008

Page 17 of 20

110.

During the Quiet Title action, the United States asserted ownership to certain parts

of Plaintiff's Mineral Estate through prescription, despite its previous representations that the Louisiana law of prescription did not apply to lands acquired by the United States and that the mineral estate vested in Good Pine Oil and its successors would therefore be perpetual. 111. The acts of the United States set forth in ¶¶ 1 - 110 above breached the covenant of

good faith and fair dealing. 112. The United States' breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing entitles

Plaintiff to (a) restitution damages equal to the value of the mineral estate acquired without payment by the United States; (b) reliance damages equal to the value of the mineral estate acquired without payment by the United States; (c) expectation damages equal to the profits that Plaintiff would have earned from the development of the mineral estate had the United States not committed a breach; (d) damages sustained by Petro-Hunt resulting from the United States' anticipatory repudiation of the terms and conditions of sale for the various tracts; and (e) other appropriate contract damages for losses sustained by Petro-Hunt as the result of wrongful acts by the United States. Count VII - Reformation 113. 114. Plaintiff incorporates the allegations raised in the preceding paragraphs (¶¶ 1 - 70). In the alternative, Petro-Hunt seeks reformation of the conveyance instruments in

which Bodcaw Lumber and Grant Timber conveyed the surface estate to reflect the true intentions of the parties, as expressed in the written and oral statements provided to Bodcaw Lumber and Grant Timber by the United States that the mineral rights would never prescribe as long as the United States owned the surface.

17

Case 1:00-cv-00512-FMA

Document 51

Filed 06/25/2008

Page 18 of 20

PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for relief as follows: 1. A money judgment equal to the just compensation owing to Plaintiff for the

permanent taking of its property for public use, together with interest thereon at the legal rate from the date of the taking; 2. A money judgment equal to the just compensation owing to Plaintiff for the

temporary taking of its property for public use, together with interest thereon at the legal rate from the date of the taking; 3. A money judgment equal to the damages owing to Plaintiff for the breach of

contract by the United States under the alternative theories of restitution, reliance, expectation of damages, anticipatory repudiation, and, together with interest thereon at the legal rate; 4. Attorneys' fees associated with bringing this action, including but not limited to

those available under the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, (42 U.S.C. § 4654(c)); 5. action; 6. 7. All other reasonable costs associated with bringing this action; Such other and further relief as the Court deems just. The expenses of appraisers and other experts reasonably required to prosecute this

Respectfully Submitted,

18

Case 1:00-cv-00512-FMA

Document 51

Filed 06/25/2008

Page 19 of 20

Attorneys for Plaintiff _s/J. Ralph White______________ J. Ralph White Counsel of Record THE LAW OFFICE OF J. RALPH WHITE, PLLC 650 Poydras Street, Suite 1605 New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 Telephone: 504-799-2585 Facsimile: 504-799-2588 E-Mail: [email protected] Of Counsel: D. Joe Smith Edmund M. Amorosi SMITH PACHTER MCWHORTER PLC 8000 Towers Crescent Drive, Suite 900 Vienna, Virginia 22182 Telephone: 703-847-6300 Facsimile: 703-847-6312 E-Mail: [email protected] Dated: June 25, 2008

19

Case 1:00-cv-00512-FMA

Document 51

Filed 06/25/2008

Page 20 of 20

CERTIFICATE OF ELECTRONIC FILING AND SERVICE I hereby certify that on this 25th day of June, 2008, Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint was filed electronically. I understand that notice of this filing will be sent to counsel for the Defendant by operation of the Court's electronic filing system. Parties may access this filing through the Court's system.

_s/J. Ralph White___________ J. Ralph White

20