Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Alliance Energy & Engineering Corp. v. Rodgers

United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky, Bowling Green Division

June 25, 2019

ALLIANCE ENERGY & ENGINEERING CORPORATION PLAINTIFF
v.
RONNIE CHARLES RODGERS; and R&R PLUS, LLC DEFENDANTS

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

          Greg N. Stivers, Chief Judge United States District Court

         This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Alliance Energy & Engineering Corporation's unopposed Motion for Summary Judgment (DN 35). For the reasons outlined below, the motion is GRANTED.

         I. STATEMENT OF FACTS AND CLAIMS

         PLAINTIFF Alliance Energy & Engineering Corporation (“Plaintiff”) filed this diversity action asserting claims for fraud, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment, and seeking damages against Defendants Ronnie Charles Rodgers (“Rodgers”) and R&R Plus, LLC (“R&R Plus”).[1] (Compl. 1-2, DN 1). Plaintiff is an oil and gas exploration company. (Pl.'s Mot. Summ. J. 2, DN 35 [hereinafter Pl.'s Mot.]). Rodgers held an interest in an oil and gas lease, which he sought to assign to Plaintiff for the sum of $230, 000. (Pl.'s Mot. Summ. J. Ex. 4, DN 35-4 [hereinafter Contract]; Pl.'s Mot. Summ. J. Ex. 5, DN 35-5).

         In the contract, Rodgers guaranteed the wells would produce at least seven barrels of oil per day for three years. (Contract 3). R&R Plus agreed to make a No. of refurbishments to existing wells and promised to dig a new well. (Contract 2). Rodgers promised that if the wells did not produce the seven barrels per day for three years, it would either drill a new well or purchase a new well for Plaintiff. (Contract 3).

         Rodgers provided Plaintiff with a purported geological report detailing the wells' production capabilities. (Pl.'s Mot. Summ. J. Ex. 6, ¶ 10, DN 35-6 [hereinafter Abinteh Aff.]). Rodgers misrepresented his past success in the oil and gas business and other facts about the wells purportedly drilled for Plaintiff. (Abinteh Aff. ¶ 15). Further, he concealed past disciplinary and regulatory action taken against him in Kentucky. (Abinteh Aff. ¶ 16).

         In support of its allegations, Plaintiff has provided an indictment from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky (the “Indictment”) charging Rodgers with mail fraud, wire fraud, and violations of securities laws. (Pl.'s Mot. Summ. J. Ex. 7, DN 35-7 [hereinafter Indictment]). In relevant part, the true bill charges:

It was the plan of RONNIE C. RODGERS and his associates to make a large amount of money in the oil and gas business in a manner flippantly referred to in the industry as “above the ground.” This scheme involves making one's money as a promoter of oil and gas programs by keeping a portion of investor money, not by the actual production and sale of oil and gas. RONNIE C. RODGERS and his associates knew that the leases and geographical areas in which they were working would not produce enough oil and gas to provide a return of the investments, and that most investors would lose most, if not all, of their investment. The plan was to create an appearance of business legitimacy; obtain money from investors under falsely-created expectations of profit; obtain more money from investors than was necessary to drill the wells; go through the motions of drilling what the Operators expected to be dry holes or wells with minimal production; lull and placate complaining investors with various false excuses for non-production; use large sums of investor money for personal expenses and purchases; and ultimately, discontinue any contact with the investors.

         (Indictment 3-4).

         Rodgers was found guilty of these charges following a jury trial. (Pl.'s Mot. Summ. J. Ex. 8, DN 35-8). Now, Plaintiff's unopposed motion for summary judgment seeks to impose civil liability on Defendants for allegations mirroring those acts for which Rodgers was convicted in the Eastern District of Kentucky.[2]

         II. JURISDICTION

         The Court has diversity jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

         III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

         In ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the Court must determine whether there is any genuine issue of material fact that would preclude entry of judgment for the moving party as a matter of law. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). The moving party bears the initial burden of stating the basis for the motion and identifying evidence in the record that demonstrates an absence of a genuine dispute of material fact. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). If the moving party satisfies its burden, the non-moving party must then produce ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.