Samson Resources Company et al v. Valero Marketing and Supply Company et al

-1-
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
SAMSON RESOURCES COMPANY; SAMSON LONE
STAR, LLC; and SAMSON CONTOUR ENERGY E&P,
LLC,
Plaintiffs,
No. CIV 09-0863 JB/LAM
vs. 	consolidated with
No. CIV 09-0865 JB/KBM
VALERO 	MARKETING 	AND 	SUPPLY 	COMPANY;
NCRA/NATIONAL 	COOPERATIVE 	REFINERY
ASSOCIATION; HUSKY MARKETING AND SUPPLY
COMPANY; CHEVRON TEXACO LP; TEPPCO CRUDE
GP, LLC; CIMARRON TRANSMISSION COMPANY;
INTERSTATE PETROLEUM CORPORATION; MERRILL
LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH, INCORPORATED;
OCCIDENTAL ENERGY MARKETING, INC.; OASIS
T R A N S P O R T A T I O N 	A N D 	M A R K E T I N G
CORPORATION; 	PLAINS 	MARKETING 	GP, 	INC.;
PLAINS MARKETING, L.P.; SHELL OIL COMPANY; BP
OIL SUPPLY COMPANY; J. ARON & COMPANY;
S U N O C O 	L O G I S T I C S 	P A R T N E R S , 	L P ;
CONOCOPHILLIPS 	COMPANY; 	and 	COFFEYVILLE
RESOURCE REFINING & MARKETING, LLC,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Parties’ Stipulation of Relevant
Jurisdictional Facts and Authorities, filed April 5, 2011 (Doc. 167). The Court held a hearing on
March 29, 2011. The primary issue is whether this matter implicates bankruptcy jurisdiction. The
Court concludes that bankruptcy jurisdiction exists to hear this matter, and refers the consolidated
cases to the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Mexico for adjudication.
Case 1:09-cv-00863-JB -LAM Document 176 Filed 05/06/11 Page 1 of 23
Case 11-00005-j Doc 1 Filed 05/11/11 Entered 05/13/11 13:28:33 Page 1 of 23

1 To the extent that they have the authority to do so, Samson and Plains Marketing both agree
that this stipulation shall not bind or be used by either party in any other proceeding. In addition,
Samson and Plains Marketing agree that neither party will use any subsequent ruling on this Court’s
jurisdiction arising from this stipulation as a basis to assert claim or issue preclusion or law of the
case in any other proceeding. While Samson and Plains Marketing cannot agree to facts that are not
true in an effort to consent to federal Court jurisdiction when there is none, the Court has no reason
to doubt the veracity of the stipulated facts.
-2-
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs Samson Resources Company, Samson Lone Star, LLC, and Samson Contour
Energy E&P, LLC (collectively, “Samson”), and Defendants Plains Marketing, L.P., and Plains
Marketing GP, Inc. (collectively, “Plains Marketing”) stipulate to the following jurisdictional facts. 1
On July 22, 2008, SemGroup, L.P., and its affiliates, including SemCrude, L.P., and
Eaglwing, L.P. (collectively, the “Debtors”), filed voluntary petitions for relief under Chapter 11 of
the Bankruptcy Code in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware. Plains
Marketing has filed multiple proofs of claims against the Debtors, arising from the parties’
contractual arrangements for the purchase and sale of oil and gas. In addition, Plains Marketing
commenced an adversary proceeding in the Delaware Bankruptcy Court seeking to tender
approximately $2.5 million to the Debtors, in full satisfaction of its obligations to them.
On October 5, 2009, the Delaware Bankruptcy Court entered an agreed order for Plains
Marketing to tender $2.5 million (the “Tendered Funds”) to the Debtors subject to certain conditions
and limitations, including a reservation of rights with respect to Samson’s claims against Plains
Marketing. The Tendered Funds are being held in a segregated account pending the outcome of
Plains Marketing’s claims against the Debtors.
Samson commenced these combined cases in the Fifth Judicial District for the State of New
Mexico on July 21, 2009. The first case was filed in New Mexico State District Court for Chaves
Case 1:09-cv-00863-JB -LAM Document 176 Filed 05/06/11 Page 2 of 23
Case 11-00005-j Doc 1 Filed 05/11/11 Entered 05/13/11 13:28:33 Page 2 of 23

-3-
County and relates to oil and gas produced from wells located in Chaves County. The second case
was filed in the New Mexico State District Court for Lea County and relates to oil and gas produced
from wells located in Lea County. 	Samson seeks declarations that Plains Marketing is a first
purchaser from Samson, that the crude oil Samson sold to Plains Marketing and the resulting
proceeds are encumbered with statutory purchase-money security interests and liens, or held in
constructive/resulting trust for the benefit of Samson under New Mexico state law, an accounting,
surrender of the crude oil and proceeds, and a lien foreclose. All of the claims asserted in these
cases, which relate solely to the production from these two New Mexico counties, are based upon
New Mexico law, including claims pursuant to the Oil and Gas Products Lien Act, N.M.S.A. 1978,
§§ 48-9-1 through 48-9-8.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The cases were removed to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1334(b), 1446, and 1452(a)
on September 9, 2009. On October 28, 2009, the Delaware Bankruptcy Court confirmed the Debtors
SemGroup, L.P., and its affiliates’ joint plan of reorganization. 	The order confirming the plan
provided that Plains Marketing could continue to assert its claims, if any, against the Debtors,
including against the Tendered Funds, subject to all available defenses and objections.
On June 3, 2010, Plains Marketing filed a motion in Delaware Bankruptcy Court to recoup
a portion of the Tendered Funds on the basis that the actions brought by the producers against it,
including these cases pending before the Court, amount to “attacks on its title” to the oil and gas it
purchased from the Debtors, and thereby breached the warranty of title contained in the contracts
between Plains Marketing and the Debtors. The Debtors have opposed Plains Marketing’s motion
to recoup, which is pending before the Delaware Bankruptcy Court.
Case 1:09-cv-00863-JB -LAM Document 176 Filed 05/06/11 Page 3 of 23
Case 11-00005-j Doc 1 Filed 05/11/11 Entered 05/13/11 13:28:33 Page 3 of 23

-4-
On March 17, 2011, Plains Marketing filed its third amended complaint in the Bankruptcy
Court. The third amended complaint asserts a claim of indemnification against the Debtors for the
“actions taken against it by the Producers,” including the cases pending before the Court. 	The
Debtors recently filed their answer to Plains Marketing’s third amended complaint and dispute that
Plains Marketing is entitled to such indemnification.
On March 29, 2011, this Court held a hearing on the Plaintiffs’ Combined Motion to Remand
and Brief in Support, filed September 25, 2009 (Doc. 62), and Plains Marketing’s Motion to
Dismiss, Transfer or Stay Proceedings and Brief in Support, filed September 14, 2009 (Doc. 12).
At the hearing, the parties withdrew these motions in their entirety and agreed to go forward with
these cases before the Court. Cautioning the parties that they could not consent to federal Court
jurisdiction where there is none, however, the Court required the parties to provide the relevant
jurisdictional facts so that it could determine independently whether it possessed jurisdiction to
decide these cases.
On April 5, 2011, the parties filed their Stipulation of Relevant Jurisdictional Facts and
Authorities. See Doc. 167. Samson and Plains Marketing submit stipulated facts, precedents, and
decisions to provide the Court information to assist it in determining whether it possesses
jurisdiction of these cases pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b).
LAW REGARDING BANKRUPTCY JURISDICTION
The Constitution gives Congress the power “[t]o establish . . . uniform Laws on the subject
of Bankruptcies throughout the United States.” 	U.S. Const. 	Art. I § 8. 	The federal courts’
jurisdiction over bankruptcy law and cases is grounded in and limited by statute. See Celotex Corp.
v. Edwards, 514 U.S. 300, 307 (1995). In relevant part, the statute provide that “the district courts
Case 1:09-cv-00863-JB -LAM Document 176 Filed 05/06/11 Page 4 of 23
Case 11-00005-j Doc 1 Filed 05/11/11 Entered 05/13/11 13:28:33 Page 4 of 23

-5-
shall have original but not exclusive jurisdiction of all civil proceedings arising under title 11, or
arising in or related to cases under title 11.” 28 U.S.C. 1334(b). 28 U.S.C.A. § 1334 provides:
(a) Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, the district courts shall have
original and exclusive jurisdiction of all cases under title 11.
(b) Except as provided in subsection (e)(2), and notwithstanding any Act of Congress
that confers exclusive jurisdiction on a court or courts other than the district courts,
the district courts shall have original but not exclusive jurisdiction of all civil
proceedings arising under title 11, or arising in or related to cases under title 11.
(c)(1) Except with respect to a case under chapter 15 of title 11, nothing in this
section prevents a district court in the interest of justice, or in the interest of comity
with State courts or respect for State law, from abstaining from hearing a particular
proceeding arising under title 11 or arising in or related to a case under title 11.
(2) Upon timely motion of a party in a proceeding based upon a State law claim or
State law cause of action, related to a case under title 11 but not arising under title
11 or arising in a case under title 11, with respect to which an action could not have
been commenced in a court of the United States absent jurisdiction under this
section, the district court shall abstain from hearing such proceeding if an action is
commenced, and can be timely adjudicated, in a State forum of appropriate
jurisdiction.
(d) Any decision to abstain or not to abstain made under subsection (c) (other than
a decision not to abstain in a proceeding described in subsection (c)(2)) is not
reviewable by appeal or otherwise by the court of appeals under section 158(d),
1291, or 1292 of this title or by the Supreme Court of the United States under section
1254 of this title. Subsection (c) and this subsection shall not be construed to limit
the applicability of the stay provided for by section 362 of title 11, United States
Code, as such section applies to an action affecting the property of the estate in
bankruptcy.
(e) The district court in which a case under title 11 is commenced or is pending shall
have exclusive jurisdiction --
(1) 	of 	all 	the 	property, 	wherever 	located, 	of 	the 	debtor 	as 	of 	the
commencement of such case, and of property of the estate; and
(2) over all claims or causes of action that involve construction of section
327 of title 11, United States Code, or rules relating to disclosure
requirements under section 327.
Case 1:09-cv-00863-JB -LAM Document 176 Filed 05/06/11 Page 5 of 23
Case 11-00005-j Doc 1 Filed 05/11/11 Entered 05/13/11 13:28:33 Page 5 of 23

-6-
28 U.S.C. § 1334.
The 	jurisdictional 	grant 	distinguishes 	between 	“core” 	and 	“non-core”/“related 	to”
proceedings. In re Wilborn, 609 F.3d 748, 752 (5th Cir. 2010).
Bankruptcy courts have only the jurisdiction and powers expressly or by
necessary implication granted by Congress. 	Johnson v. First Nat'l Bank of
Montevideo, 	719 	F.2d 	270, 	273 	(8th 	Cir. 	1983), 	cert. 	denied, 	465 	U.S.
1012 . . . (1984). Bankruptcy courts have jurisdiction over core proceedings. See
28 U.S.C. § 157. Core proceedings are proceedings which have no existence outside
of bankruptcy. In re Alexander, 49 B.R. 733, 736 (Bankr. D.N.D. 1985). Actions
which do not depend on the bankruptcy laws for their existence and which could
proceed in another court are not core proceedings. In re Wood, 825 F.2d 90, 96 (5th
Cir. 1987).
. . . .
Bankruptcy courts also have jurisdiction over related proceedings, under the
authority of 28 U.S.C. § 1471(b), which confers jurisdiction on district courts for
cases related to title 11 proceedings. In re Fietz, 852 F.2d 455, 456 (9th Cir. 1988);
see also 28 U.S.C. § 157. 	Related proceedings are civil proceedings that, in the
absence of a bankruptcy petition, could have been brought in a district court or state
court. In re Colorado Energy Supply, Inc., 728 F.2d 1283, 1286 (10th Cir. 1984).
“[T]he test for determining whether a civil proceeding is related in bankruptcy is
whether the outcome of that proceeding could conceivably have any effect on the
estate being administered in bankruptcy.” Pacor, Inc. v. Higgins, 743 F.2d 984, 994
(3d Cir. 1984) (emphasis omitted). Although the proceeding need not be against the
debtor or his property, the proceeding is related to the bankruptcy if the outcome
could alter the debtor's rights, liabilities, options, or freedom of action in any way,
thereby impacting on the handling and administration of the bankruptcy estate. Id.;
see also In re Wood, 825 F.2d at 93 (related matters conceivably have effect on
administration of bankruptcy estate); In re Dogpatch U.S.A., Inc., 810 F.2d 782, 786
(8th Cir. 1987) (same); In re Bobroff, 766 F.2d 797, 802 (3d Cir. 1985) (same).
A bankruptcy court has jurisdiction over disputes regarding alleged property
of the bankruptcy estate at the outset of the case. In re Xonics, Inc., 813 F.2d 127,
131 (7th Cir. 1987). 	When property leaves the bankruptcy estate, however, the
bankruptcy court's jurisdiction typically lapses, In re Hall's Motor Transit Co., 889
F.2d 520, 523 (3d Cir. 1989); In re Xonics, Inc., 813 F.2d at 131; In re Muller, 72
B.R. 280, 284 (C.D. Ill. 1987), aff'd, 851 F.2d 916 (7th Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 490
U.S. 1007 . . . (1989), and the property's relationship to the bankruptcy proceeding
comes to an end. See In re Hall's Motor Transit Co., 889 F.2d at 523. Thus, the
bankruptcy court lacks related jurisdiction to resolve controversies between third
Case 1:09-cv-00863-JB -LAM Document 176 Filed 05/06/11 Page 6 of 23
Case 11-00005-j Doc 1 Filed 05/11/11 Entered 05/13/11 13:28:33 Page 6 of 23

-7-
party creditors which do not involve the debtor or his property unless the court
cannot complete administrative duties without resolving the controversy. 	In re
Shirley Duke Assocs., 611 F.2d 15, 18 (2d Cir. 1979).
In re Gardner, 913 F.2d 1515, 1517-18 (10th Cir. 1990)(emphasis added). Section 157 of Title 28
provides:
(a) Each district court may provide that any or all cases under title 11 and any or all
proceedings arising under title 11 or arising in or related to a case under title 11 shall
be referred to the bankruptcy judges for the district.
(b)(1) Bankruptcy judges may hear and determine all cases under title 11 and all core
proceedings arising under title 11, or arising in a case under title 11, referred under
subsection (a) of this section, and may enter appropriate orders and judgments,
subject to review under section 158 of this title.
(2) Core proceedings include, but are not limited to --
(A) matters concerning the administration of the estate;
(B) allowance or disallowance of claims against the estate or exemptions
from property of the estate, and estimation of claims or interests for the
purposes of confirming a plan under chapter 11, 12, or 13 of title 11 but not
the liquidation or estimation of contingent or unliquidated personal injury tort
or wrongful death claims against the estate for purposes of distribution in a
case under title 11;
(C) counterclaims by the estate against persons filing claims against the
estate;
(D) orders in respect to obtaining credit;
(E) orders to turn over property of the estate;
(F) proceedings to determine, avoid, or recover preferences;
(G) motions to terminate, annul, or modify the automatic stay;
(H) proceedings to determine, avoid, or recover fraudulent conveyances;
(I) determinations as to the dischargeability of particular debts;
(J) objections to discharges;
Case 1:09-cv-00863-JB -LAM Document 176 Filed 05/06/11 Page 7 of 23
Case 11-00005-j Doc 1 Filed 05/11/11 Entered 05/13/11 13:28:33 Page 7 of 23

-8-
(K) determinations of the validity, extent, or priority of liens;
(L) confirmations of plans;
(M) orders approving the use or lease of property, including the use of cash
collateral;
(N) orders approving the sale of property other than property resulting from
claims brought by the estate against persons who have not filed claims
against the estate;
(O) other proceedings affecting the liquidation of the assets of the estate or
the 	adjustment 	of 	the 	debtor-creditor 	or 	the 	equity 	security 	holder
relationship, except personal injury tort or wrongful death claims; and
(P) recognition of foreign proceedings and other matters under chapter 15 of
title 11.
(3) The bankruptcy judge shall determine, on the judge's own motion or on timely
motion of a party, whether a proceeding is a core proceeding under this subsection
or is a proceeding that is otherwise related to a case under title 11. A determination
that a proceeding is not a core proceeding shall not be made solely on the basis that
its resolution may be affected by State law.
(4) Non-core proceedings under section 157(b)(2)(B) of title 28, United States Code,
shall not be subject to the mandatory abstention provisions of section 1334(c)(2).
(5) The district court shall order that personal injury tort and wrongful death claims
shall be tried in the district court in which the bankruptcy case is pending, or in the
district court in the district in which the claim arose, as determined by the district
court in which the bankruptcy case is pending.
(c)(1) A bankruptcy judge may hear a proceeding that is not a core proceeding but
that is otherwise related to a case under title 11. In such proceeding, the bankruptcy
judge shall submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to the district
court, and any final order or judgment shall be entered by the district judge after
considering the bankruptcy judge's proposed findings and conclusions and after
reviewing de novo those matters to which any party has timely and specifically
objected.
(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (1) of this subsection, the district
court, with the consent of all the parties to the proceeding, may refer a proceeding
related to a case under title 11 to a bankruptcy judge to hear and determine and to
Case 1:09-cv-00863-JB -LAM Document 176 Filed 05/06/11 Page 8 of 23
Case 11-00005-j Doc 1 Filed 05/11/11 Entered 05/13/11 13:28:33 Page 8 of 23

-9-
enter appropriate orders and judgments, subject to review under section 158 of this
title.
(d) The district court may withdraw, in whole or in part, any case or proceeding
referred under this section, on its own motion or on timely motion of any party, for
cause shown. The district court shall, on timely motion of a party, so withdraw a
proceeding if the court determines that resolution of the proceeding requires
consideration of both title 11 and other laws of the United States regulating
organizations or activities affecting interstate commerce.
(e) If the right to a jury trial applies in a proceeding that may be heard under this
section by a bankruptcy judge, the bankruptcy judge may conduct the jury trial if
specially designated to exercise such jurisdiction by the district court and with the
express consent of all the parties.
28 U.S.C.A. § 157. The statutory reference of “related to” or “non-core” proceedings “is primarily
intended to encompass tort, contract, and other legal claims by and against a debtor.” Zerand-Bernal
Group, Inc. v. Cox, 23 F.3d 159, 161 (7th Cir. 1994)(Posner, J.).
A bankruptcy court has jurisdiction over disputes regarding alleged property of the
bankruptcy estate at the outset of the case. In re Xonics, Inc., 813 F.2d 127, 131 (7th
Cir. 1987). When property leaves the bankruptcy estate, however, the bankruptcy
court's jurisdiction typically lapses, In re Hall's Motor Transit Co., 889 F.2d 520, 523
(3d Cir. 1989); In re Xonics, Inc., 813 F.2d at 131; In re Muller, 72 B.R. 280, 284
(C.D. Ill. 1987), aff'd, 851 F.2d 916 (7th Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 490 U.S.
1007 . . . (1989), and the property's relationship to the bankruptcy proceeding comes
to an end. See In re Hall's Motor Transit Co., 889 F.2d at 523. Thus, the bankruptcy
court lacks related jurisdiction to resolve controversies between third party creditors
which do not involve the debtor or his property unless the court cannot complete
administrative duties without resolving the controversy. In re Shirley Duke Assocs.,
611 F.2d 15, 18 (2d Cir. 1979).
In re Gardner, 913 F.2d 1515, 1518 (10th Cir. 1990).
ANALYSIS
The Supreme Court of the United States has observed:
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. 	They possess only that power
authorized by Constitution and statute, which is not to be expanded by judicial
decree. It is to be presumed that a cause lies outside this limited jurisdiction, and the
burden of establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction.
Case 1:09-cv-00863-JB -LAM Document 176 Filed 05/06/11 Page 9 of 23
Case 11-00005-j Doc 1 Filed 05/11/11 Entered 05/13/11 13:28:33 Page 9 of 23

-10-
Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994)(citations and quotations
omitted). Before it may accept the parties’ agreement to have this Court hear this matter, the Court
must determine whether it has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 157 and 1334. The parties are not
diverse -- both the Plaintiffs and Defendants include Delaware corporations -- and Samson’s claims
are based on state law. If the Court has jurisdiction, therefore, it must come from bankruptcy law.
Because Samson seeks declaratory relief deciding whether Plains Marketing’s obligations are to the
Debtor’s estate or to Samson, Samson’s claims implicate the Court’s bankruptcy core jurisdiction.
Because the District of New Mexico has entered an order, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(a)(“Each
district court may provide that any or all cases under title 11 and any or all proceedings arising under
title 11 or arising in or related to a case under title 11 shall be referred to the bankruptcy judges for
the district.”), that “all cases under Title 11 and all proceedings arising under Title 11 or arising in
or related to a case under Title 11 are referred to the bankruptcy judges for the district to the extent
permitted by law,” In the Matter of Reference to Bankruptcy Judges and Local Bankruptcy Rules,
Misc. No. 84-0324 (D.N.M. March 19, 1992), the Court, having found bankruptcy jurisdiction over
this matter, refers the case to the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Mexico.
I. 	THE COURT HAS BANKRUPTCY JURISDICTION OVER THIS CASE.
Samson seeks declaratory relief, judgments in personam and judgments in rem against Plains
Marketing, who it alleges has not paid for and is in wrongful possession of oil and the proceeds of
the sale of that oil, which are encumbered with Samson's liens, security interests and trust rights.
Samson seeks a declaration that
the Samson Proceeds held by Defendants as a result of the sale of the oil produced
by Samson and sold through SemGroup to Defendants, retain a legally cognizable
special status as purchase money security interests, liens, and constructive/resulting
trusts, or proceeds flowing therefrom, and must be paid over to and for the benefit
Case 1:09-cv-00863-JB -LAM Document 176 Filed 05/06/11 Page 10 of 23
Case 11-00005-j Doc 1 Filed 05/11/11 Entered 05/13/11 13:28:33 Page 10 of 23

-11-
of Samson in such fashion as the Court deems appropriate in order to adequately and
properly secure said interests of Samson.
Complaint ¶ 18, at 7. Samson further seeks a declaration that Plains Marketing is a first purchaser
under New Mexico law, and that “SemGroup acted as agent for Defendants in purchasing crude oil
from Samson for which Defendants have not paid, and Defendants not SemGroup are the first
purchaser of Samson's crude oil under applicable state law.” Complaint ¶ 22, at 8. Samson also
seeks an accounting, surrender of the crude oil and proceeds, and a lien foreclose. Samson seeks,
in effect, a declaration that Plains Marketing owes obligations to Samson, and not to the Debtors,
which would affect the size of the bankruptcy estate.
The Court concludes that Samson’s declaratory relief claim is a core bankruptcy proceeding.
In In re Gardner, 913 F.2d 1515 (10th Cir. 1990), the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth
Circuit held that, while the initial decision whether property was part of a bankruptcy estate is a core
bankruptcy proceeding, a federal court had no bankruptcy jurisdiction thereafter to decide the
priority of third parties’ interests in property. The case involved a dispute between Mrs. Gardner,
the former spouse of the debtor, who claimed an interest in the debtor’s estate from a ruling in a state
court divorce proceeding, and the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”), who claimed an interest from
a tax lien. The Tenth Circuit “affirm[ed] the determination that Mr. Gardner had no interest in the
marital property after the final divorce decree and remand[ed] for dismissal for lack of jurisdiction
the bankruptcy court's determination” of the priority of the third parties’ interests in the property.
The Tenth Circuit stated:
Although determination of whether the marital property is part of the
bankruptcy estate is a core proceeding, the later determination of the ownership of
the marital property as between third parties, such as Mrs. Gardner and the
government, is not a core proceeding. See In re Holland Indus., Inc., 103 B.R. 461,
466 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1989) (bankruptcy courts determine validity of tax liens under
Case 1:09-cv-00863-JB -LAM Document 176 Filed 05/06/11 Page 11 of 23
Case 11-00005-j Doc 1 Filed 05/11/11 Entered 05/13/11 13:28:33 Page 11 of 23

-12-
rubric of core proceedings only when lien concerns debtor's property); cf. In re
Jackson, 102 B.R. 82 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. 1988) (court had jurisdiction to determine
validity, extent or priority of liens on homestead property pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 157(b)(2)(K) and (O) as a core proceeding and as a related proceeding even though
property was no longer property of bankruptcy estate; jurisdiction retained only to
determine what debts are discharged and unsecured indebtedness of debtor's estate).
Accordingly, this action is not a core bankruptcy proceeding.
. . . .
In this case, the dispute between the government and Mrs. Gardner does not
involve identification of the debtor's property interest, since the bankruptcy court had
determined Mr. Gardner had no interest in the property. See In re Xonics, Inc., 813
F.2d at 131. 	Rather, this case involves the conflict between two creditors over
property no longer a part of the bankruptcy estate. 	The conflict between the
government and Mrs. Gardner is irrelevant to the bankruptcy estate, because the
disputes regarding their stake in Mr. Gardner's property have been resolved, see In
re Incor, Inc., 100 B.R. 790, 799 (Bankr. D. Md. 1989), and neither Mr. Gardner nor
the bankruptcy estate are affected by the dispute between Mrs. Gardner and the
government, see In re Alexander, 49 B.R. at 737 (bankruptcy court “lacks the
jurisdiction to either hear or decide private lien priority disputes involving secured
creditors whose dispute does not either directly or indirectly affect the debtor or
property of the estate”); see also In re Federal Shopping Way, Inc., 717 F.2d 1264,
1272 (9th Cir. 1983) (when property is outside bankruptcy court's possession and
trustee claims no interest in property, bankruptcy court is without jurisdiction to
adjudicate conflicting claims to ownership of property).
913 F.2d at 1517-19.
Similarly, in In the Matter of Xonics, Inc., 813 F.2d 127 (7th Cir. 1987)(Easterbrook, J.), the
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit hypothesized:
Suppose A, B, and C claim interests in a pool of oil. 	If A is a bankrupt, the
bankruptcy court could determine the interests of all three in the property under 28
U.S.C. § 157(b)(2) or § 157(c)(1), because only after identifying the “property” of
the estate may the court apportion that property among creditors. But if the estate
should disclaim any interest in the pool, only the dispute between B and C would
remain. The resolution of that dispute would not affect the creditors of the bankrupt,
and there would be no source of jurisdiction. That B and C might also be creditors
of the bankrupt would not enlarge the court's power; there is no jurisdiction to
resolve all disputes among creditors of a bankrupt. 	There is jurisdiction under
§ 157(c)(1) only when the dispute is “related to” the bankruptcy -- meaning that it
affects the amount of property available for distribution or the allocation of property
Case 1:09-cv-00863-JB -LAM Document 176 Filed 05/06/11 Page 12 of 23
Case 11-00005-j Doc 1 Filed 05/11/11 Entered 05/13/11 13:28:33 Page 12 of 23

-13-
among creditors. In re Paso del Norte Oil Co., 755 F.2d 421 (5th Cir. 1985); Pacor,
Inc. v. Higgins, 743 F.2d 984, 994-96 (3d Cir. 1984). The bankruptcy jurisdiction
is designed to provide a single forum for dealing with all claims to the bankrupt's
assets. It extends no farther than its purpose. That two creditors have an internecine
conflict is of no moment, once all disputes about their stakes in the bankrupt's
property have been resolved. Cf. Owen Equipment & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437
U.S. 365 . . . (1978) (same principle outside of bankruptcy law -- a cross-claim
between defendants requires a new source of federal jurisdiction when it does not
affect the disposition of the claim that supplied the original federal jurisdiction). The
unrelated dispute among two creditors also would not be a “core” proceeding under
§ 157(b)(2); it is the relation of dispute to estate, and not of party to estate, that
establishes jurisdiction.
813 F.2d at 131 (footnotes omitted).
The Court concludes that Samson’s request for declaratory relief is a core proceeding under
28 U.S.C. § 157, because Samson seeks to determine the parties’ “stakes in the bankrupt's property.”
813 F.2d at 131. Section 157(b) provides a non-exclusive list of those matters that constitute core
proceedings, including: (i) “matters concerning the administration of the estate”; (ii) “allowance or
disallowance of claims against the estate”; (iii) “orders to turn over property of the estate”; (iv)
“proceedings to determine, avoid, or recover preferences”; and (v) “other proceedings affecting the
liquidation of the assets of the estate or the adjustment of the debtor-creditor or the equity security
holder relationship.” 	28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2). 	Here, Samson seeks a declaration that Plains
Marketing, and not the Debtors, were the first purchasers under New Mexico law, and Plains
Marketing’s debt is to Samson, and not to the bankruptcy estate. 	Samson seeks in effect a
“determination of whether the [debt] is part of the bankruptcy estate,” which “is a core proceeding.”
In re Gardner, 913 F.2d at 1518. 	See 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(K)(“Core proceedings include . . .
determinations of the validity, extent, or priority of liens.”). Unlike the procedural posture of In re
Gardner, no court has determined whether the debt is part of the Debtors’ estate. Additionally,
unlike the hypothetical facts in In the Matter of Xonics, Inc., the Debtors have not “disclaim[ed] any
Case 1:09-cv-00863-JB -LAM Document 176 Filed 05/06/11 Page 13 of 23
Case 11-00005-j Doc 1 Filed 05/11/11 Entered 05/13/11 13:28:33 Page 13 of 23

-14-
interest” in the debt. 813 F.2d at 131.
Even if the Court did not have core bankruptcy jurisdiction over Samson’s claims, it would
have related-to jurisdiction. In a case with similar facts, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Fifth Circuit held that “related-to” jurisdiction existed over a plaintiff’s damages claim. In re TXNB
Internal Case, 483 F.3d 292, 298 (5th Cir. 2007). 	In that case, Edge Petroleum Operating Co.
(“Edge”), a natural-gas producer, sold gas to the debtors who in turn sold the gas to Duke Energy
Trading and Marketing, L.L.C. (“Duke”). Without paying Edge for the natural gas, the debtors filed
for bankruptcy. Edge subsequently sued Duke in state court seeking to recover the amount owed
to it for the sale of the natural gas. 	The Fifth Circuit held that removal to federal court was
appropriate because federal courts have jurisdiction over proceedings “related to” bankruptcy
proceedings. The Fifth Circuit reasoned:
Although . . . this case involves only a claim against Duke's assets, the district court
was wrong to assume that a claim by Edge solely against Duke's property does not
relate to the debtors' bankruptcy proceedings. Someone owes Edge money for the
gas; if it is not Duke, it is the debtors. See id. If it is Duke, then Duke will have
discharged a liability of the debtors and, as the bankruptcy court recognized,
probably will file a claim against the debtors' estates for reimbursement. Although
there likely would be no change in the amount of liability claimed against the
debtors, Duke and Edge presumably had different contractual arrangements with the
debtors and different statutory bases for their claims.
Id. at 298.
In Samson Resources Company v. Occidental Energy Marketing, Inc., No. CIV 09-0828
WJ/GBW, Memorandum Opinion and Order Denying Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss or Transfer
the Proceedings and Granting Defendant’s Motion to Stay Proceedings (Doc. 25)(D.N.M. May 12,
2010), the Honorable William C. Johnson, United States District Court Judge for the District Court
of New Mexico, relied on In re TXNB Internal Case to find related-to jurisdiction over Samson’s
Case 1:09-cv-00863-JB -LAM Document 176 Filed 05/06/11 Page 14 of 23
Case 11-00005-j Doc 1 Filed 05/11/11 Entered 05/13/11 13:28:33 Page 14 of 23

-15-
claims against Occidental Energy Marketing, Inc., which sought only damages and did not seek
declaratory relief. Judge Johnson reasoned: “Here, either Eaglwing or Occidental owes Samson
money for the oil sold from the Lea County well. Any ruling by this Court would affect the claims
against Eaglwing’s estate or the value of that estate in the bankruptcy proceedings.” Memorandum
Opinion and Order Denying Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss or Transfer the Proceedings and
Granting Defendant’s Motion to Stay Proceedings at 12. The same reasoning applies to this case,
so long as a question remains whether the debt is part of the Debtor’s estate. See In re Gardner, 913
F.2d 1518 (“A civil proceeding is related to a bankruptcy proceeding if “the outcome of that
proceeding could conceivably have any effect on the estate being administered in bankruptcy.”
(citing Pacor, Inc. v. Higgins, 743 F.2d 984, 994 (3d Cir. 1984))). Cf. In re Gardner, 913 F.2d at
1518 (“Although determination of whether the marital property is part of the bankruptcy estate is
a core proceeding, the later determination of the ownership of the marital property as between third
parties, such as Mrs. Gardner and the government, is not a core proceeding.” (citing In re Holland
Indus., Inc., 103 B.R. 461, 466 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1989))). The Court concludes, therefore, that it
has bankruptcy jurisdiction over this case.
II. 	THE COURT REFERS THIS CASE TO THE BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE
DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO.
The Court, having found bankruptcy jurisdiction over this matter, refers the case to the
United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Mexico. In In re Wilborn, the United States
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit stated:
Once federal jurisdiction is found in the district court under § 1334(b), which is
construed broadly, the extent to which a bankruptcy court may adjudicate a referred
matter depends on whether the proceeding is considered to be “core” or “non-core.”
In re Majestic Energy Corp.[, 835 F.2d 87, 90 (5th Cir. 1988)]. “Core” proceedings
are those that “arise under” Title 11 insofar as they involve a cause of action created
Case 1:09-cv-00863-JB -LAM Document 176 Filed 05/06/11 Page 15 of 23
Case 11-00005-j Doc 1 Filed 05/11/11 Entered 05/13/11 13:28:33 Page 15 of 23

-16-
by a statutory provision therein, and those that “arise in” cases under Title 11, which
by their nature can only arise in bankruptcy cases; the district court may refer such
core matters to the bankruptcy court for full adjudication. See [In re Wood, 825 F.2d
90, 97 (5th Cir. 1987)]; 28 U.S.C. § 157(b). For matters that “relate to” bankruptcy
cases, however, the bankruptcy court may only issue proposed findings and
conclusions to the district court. See In re Southmark Corp.[, 163 F.3d 925, 930 &
n.8 (5th Cir. 1999)].
609 F.3d at 752.
The Tenth Circuit stated recently in In re George Love Farming, LC, No. 10-4076, 2011 WL
880285 (10th Cir. 2011):
Bankruptcy courts may exercise jurisdiction over “core proceedings arising under
title 11, or arising in a case under title 11.” 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1). Core proceedings
“include, but are not limited to . . . matters concerning the administration of the
estate” and “other proceedings affecting the liquidation of the assets of the estate or
the adjustment of the debtor-creditor or the equity security holder relationship.”
§ 157(b)(2)(A), (O). 	Further, district courts “may provide that . . . any or all
proceedings arising under title 11 or arising in or related to a case under title 11 shall
be referred to the bankruptcy judges for the district.” § 157(a). The District of Utah
has so provided. See D. Utah Civ. R. 83-7.1. Accordingly, the Utah Bankruptcy
Court has jurisdiction over all matters that are: (1) core bankruptcy proceedings; or
(2) related to ongoing bankruptcy proceedings.
2011 WL 880285, at *3. See 28 U.S.C. § 157(a) (“Each district court may provide that any or all
cases under title 11 and any or all proceedings arising under title 11 or arising in or related to a case
under title 11 shall be referred to the bankruptcy judges for the district.”). The District Court of New
Mexico has similarly provided that “all cases under Title 11 and all proceedings arising under Title
11 or arising in or related to a case under Title 11 are referred to the bankruptcy judges for the
district to the extent permitted by law.” In the Matter of Reference to Bankruptcy Judges and Local
Bankruptcy Rules, Misc. No. 84-0324 (D.N.M. March 19, 1992).
The parties have not presented any argument or reasons, sound to otherwise, why the Court
should withhold the referral under its standing order in this case. Section 157(d) of Title 28 of the
Case 1:09-cv-00863-JB -LAM Document 176 Filed 05/06/11 Page 16 of 23
Case 11-00005-j Doc 1 Filed 05/11/11 Entered 05/13/11 13:28:33 Page 16 of 23

-17-
United States Code provides:
The district court may withdraw, in whole or in part, any case or proceeding referred
under this section, on its own motion or on timely motion of any party, for cause
shown. The district court shall, on timely motion of a party, so withdraw a
proceeding if the court determines that resolution of the proceeding requires
consideration of both title 11 and other laws of the United States regulating
organizations or activities affecting interstate commerce.
28 U.S.C. § 157(d). “Cause must be shown before the reference can be withdrawn.” In re Martinez,
No. 09-15502-J7, No. CIV 10-0454 JB/WDS, ADV 10-0103-J, 2010 WL 3075282, at *2 (D.N.M.
July 15, 2010)(Browning, J.)(citing In re Pruitt, 910 F.2d 1160, 1168 (3d Cir. 1990)).
Factors relevant to the Court's determination of whether to withdraw the reference
for cause include: (1) whether the proceeding is core or non-core; (2) judicial
economy; (3) uniformity in bankruptcy administration; (4) economical use of the
debtors' and creditors' resources; (5) reduction of forum shopping and confusion; (6)
expediting the bankruptcy process; and (7) the presence of a jury demand.
In re Cook, No. CIV 09-803 JCH/CG, 2010 WL 1734737, at *3 (D.N.M. Apr. 19, 2010)(quoting In
re Apponline.com, Inc., 303 B.R. 723, 726 (E.D.N.Y. 2004)). The parties’ stipulated facts do not
suggest a reason for the Court to withhold referral. The Court therefore refers this matter to the
district’s bankruptcy court “to the extent permitted by law.” Because this matter implicates core
bankruptcy jurisdiction, the Court refers this case to the “bankruptcy court for full adjudication.”
In re Wilborn, 609 F.3d at 752 (citations omitted). See 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(“Bankruptcy judges may
hear and determine all cases under title 11 and all core proceedings arising under title 11, or arising
in a case under title 11, referred under subsection (a) of this section, and may enter appropriate
orders and judgments . . . .”).
Case 1:09-cv-00863-JB -LAM Document 176 Filed 05/06/11 Page 17 of 23
Case 11-00005-j Doc 1 Filed 05/11/11 Entered 05/13/11 13:28:33 Page 17 of 23

-18-
IT IS ORDERED that: (i) the Court finds this matter implicates core bankruptcy
jurisdiction; and (ii) the Court refers the consolidated cases to the United States Bankruptcy Court
for the District of New Mexico for adjudication.
___________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Counsel:
Adriann Ragsdale
Phillip T. Brewer
Roswell, New Mexico
-- and --
Chad J. Kutmas
Gary M. McDonald
James P. McCann
William H. Spitler
McDonald, McCann & Metcalf, LLP
Tulsa, Oklahoma
Attorneys for the Plaintiffs
Ian D McKelvy
Sanders, Bruin, Coll & Worley, P.A.
Roswell, New Mexico
-- and --
Ariadne Montare
John Zavitsanos
Timothy C. Shelby
Ahmad, Zavitsanos & Anaipakos, PC
Houston, Texas
Attorneys for Defendants Plains Marketing GP, Inc., and Plains Marketing, L.P.
Case 1:09-cv-00863-JB -LAM Document 176 Filed 05/06/11 Page 18 of 23
Case 11-00005-j Doc 1 Filed 05/11/11 Entered 05/13/11 13:28:33 Page 18 of 23

-19-
Michael H. Feldewert
Holland & Hart, LLP
Santa Fe, New Mexico
-- and --
Michael M. Parker
Fulbright & Jaworski LLP
San Antonio, Texas
-- and --
Dennis Cameron
Lisa Silvestri
Tyson Schwerdtfeger
Gable Gotwals
Tulsa, Oklahoma
Attorneys for Defendant Valero Marketing and Supply Company
Christopher A Mcelgunn
Klenda, Mitchell, Austerman & Zuercher, LLC
Wichita, Kansas
-- and --
Rodney L. Schlagel
Sherrill K. Filter
Butt, Thornton & Baeh
Albuquerque, New Mexico
Attorneys for Defendant NCRA/National Cooperative Refinery Association
Michael B. Campbell
Campbell Trial Law, LLC
Santa Fe, New Mexico
-- and --
Michael H. Feldewert
Holland & Hart, LLP
Santa Fe, New Mexico
-- and --
Case 1:09-cv-00863-JB -LAM Document 176 Filed 05/06/11 Page 19 of 23
Case 11-00005-j Doc 1 Filed 05/11/11 Entered 05/13/11 13:28:33 Page 19 of 23

-20-
Alan M. Unger
Michael G. Burke
Sidley Austin LLP
New York, New York
Attorneys for Defendant Husky Marketing and Supply Company
Robert E. Sabin
John S. Nelson
Lee M. Rogers, Jr.
Atwood, Malone, Turner & Sabin, PA
Roswell, New Mexico
Attorneys for Defendant Teppco Crude GP, LLC
Andrew G. Schultz
Catherine T. Goldberg
Rodey, Dickason, Sloan, Akin & Robb
Albuquerque, New Mexico
-- and --
Mark L. Desgrosseilliers
Somble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, PLLC
Wilmington, Delaware
Attorneys for Defendant Cimarron Transmission Company
Gordon H. Rowe, III
Rowe Law Firm, PC
Albuquerque, New Mexico
-- and --
Robert T. Cosgrove
Burns, Wall Smith and Mueller, P.C.
Denver, Colorado
Attorneys for Defendant Interstate Petroleum Corporation
Case 1:09-cv-00863-JB -LAM Document 176 Filed 05/06/11 Page 20 of 23
Case 11-00005-j Doc 1 Filed 05/11/11 Entered 05/13/11 13:28:33 Page 20 of 23

-21-
Andrew G. Schultz
Catherine T. Goldberg
Rodey, Dickason, Sloan, Akin & Robb
Albuquerque, New Mexico
Attorneys for Defendant Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Incorporated
Dennis Cameron
Lisa Silvestri
Tyson Schwerdtfeger
Gable Gotwals
Tulsa, Oklahoma
-- and --
Seth Campbell McMillan
Walter J. Melendres
Montgomery & Andrews, P.A.
Santa Fe, New Mexico
Attorneys for Defendant Occidental Energy Marketing, Inc.
David Zalman
Melissa E. Byroade
Thomas B. Kinzler
Kelley Drye & Warren LLP
New York, New York
-- and --
Michael H. Feldewert
Holland & Hart, LLP
Santa Fe, New Mexico
Attorneys for Defendant BP Oil Supply Company
Derek V. Larson
Stevan Douglas Looney
Sutin, Thayer & Browne
Albuquerque, New Mexico
Attorneys for Defendant J. Aron & Company
Case 1:09-cv-00863-JB -LAM Document 176 Filed 05/06/11 Page 21 of 23
Case 11-00005-j Doc 1 Filed 05/11/11 Entered 05/13/11 13:28:33 Page 21 of 23

-22-
Eric N. Macey
Christopher S. Moore
Courtney D. Tedrowe
Novack and Macey, LLP
Chicago, Illinois
-- and --
Paul Melendres
Melendres & Melendres
Albuquerque, New Mexico
-- and --
Jennifer P. Knox
Claudia Z. Springer
Reed Smith LLP
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Attorneys for Defendant Sunoco Logistics Partners, LP
Michael B. Campbell
Campbell Trial Law, LLC
Santa Fe, New Mexico
-- and --
Michael H. Feldewert
Holland & Hart, LLP
Santa Fe, New Mexico
Attorneys for Defendant Conocophillips Company
Clifford K. Atkinson
Douglas A. Baker
Atkinson, Thal & Baker, PC
Albuquerque, New Mexico
-- and --
Derek V. Larson
Stevan Douglas Looney
Sutin, Thayer & Browne
Albuquerque, New Mexico
Case 1:09-cv-00863-JB -LAM Document 176 Filed 05/06/11 Page 22 of 23
Case 11-00005-j Doc 1 Filed 05/11/11 Entered 05/13/11 13:28:33 Page 22 of 23

-23-
-- and --
Boaz S. Morag
Matthew M. Bunda
Clearly Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton, LLP
New York, New York
Attorneys for Defendant Coffeyville Resource Refining & Marketing, LLC
Michael H. Feldewert
Holland & Hart, LLP
Santa Fe, New Mexico
Attorney for Defendants Chevron Texaco LP and Shell Oil Company
Case 1:09-cv-00863-JB -LAM Document 176 Filed 05/06/11 Page 23 of 23
Case 11-00005-j Doc 1 Filed 05/11/11 Entered 05/13/11 13:28:33 Page 23 of 23