United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky, Bowling Green Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
N. Stivers, Chief Judge United States District Court
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
STATEMENT OF FACTS AND CLAIMS
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”). (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).
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).
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).
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
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.
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.
Court has diversity jurisdiction over the subject matter of
this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
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 ...