Oneok, Inc. v. Ming

F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 3 1998 FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT PATRICK FISHER Clerk ONEOK, INC., a Delaware corporation, Plaintiff-Appellee, No. 96-5165 v. (D.C. No. 95-CV-223-H) (N.D. Okla.) LESLIE L. MING, JR., an individual, Defendant-Appellant.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before ANDERSON, KELLY, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.

The issue presented in this appeal is whether defendant is entitled to attorney’s fees and expenses as a prevailing party under Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 936. 1

The district court denied attorney’s fees and costs, determining, in part, that the underlying diversity action to recover drilling costs was not an action for labor or services rendered. Our uncertainty about the district court’s determination that this was not an action for labor or services prompted us to certify the following question to the Oklahoma Supreme Court: “Under Oklahoma law, does an action to recover monies expended to third parties for drilling costs constitute an action to recover for labor and services under Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 936?” Oneok, Inc. v. Ming , No. 96-5165, Certification of State Law Question at 1 (Mar. 19, 1997).

In a recently filed response, the Oklahoma Supreme Court answered the question affirmatively, under the facts presented. See Oneok, Inc. v. Ming , No. 89,288, 1998 WL 395057, at *1 (Okla. July 14, 1998). We accept the Oklahoma Supreme Court’s determination, and conclude defendant is entitled to attorney’s fees incurred in the district court and on appeal, see Aircraft Equip.

Co. v. Kiowa Tribe , 921 P.2d 359, 362 (Okla. 1996). 2

Accordingly, we REVERSE and REMAND to the district court for a determination of a reasonable amount of attorney’s fees and appropriate expenses to be awarded to defendant for defending this action in the district court and for this appeal.

Entered for the Court

Carlos F. Lucero Circuit Judge