Cline et al v. Sunoco, Inc. (R&M) et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
PERRY CLINE, on behalf of 	)
himself and all others 	)
similarly situated, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Case No. CIV-17-313-JAG
)
SUNOCO, INC. (R&M) and 	)
SUNOCO PARTNERS MARKETING & 	)
TERMINALS, L.P., 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
On 	December 	1, 	2022, 	this 	Court 	conducted 	a 	hearing 	with
regard to the following motions:
• 	Plaintiff’s/Judgment Creditor’s Motion for Entry of Order and
Notice 	of 	Default 	Under 	12 	Okla. 	Stat. 	§ 	1179 	(Docket 	Entry
#535).
• 	Sunoco Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Garnishment Proceedings
against 	Atlantic 	Trading 	& 	Marketing, 	Inc., 	Opposition 	to
Plaintiff’s 	Motion 	for 	Entry 	of 	Order 	and 	Notice 	of 	Default
(Docket Entry #559).
• 	Sunoco 	Defendants’ 	Motion 	to 	Dismiss 	Garnishment 	Proceeding
against BP Products North America (Docket Entry #560).
• 	Sunoco 	Defendants’ 	Motion 	to 	Dismiss 	Garnishment 	Proceeding
against Castleton Commodities Merchant Trading, L.P. (Docket
Entry #561).
• 	Sunoco Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Garnishment Proceedings
against 	Energy 	Transfer 	Crude 	Marketing, 	LLC 	Opposition 	to
Plaintiff’s 	Motion 	for 	Entry 	of 	Order 	and 	Notice 	of 	Default
(Docket Entry #562).
• 	Sunoco Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Garnishment Proceedings
against 	Energy 	Transfer 	Crude 	Trucking, 	LLC, 	Opposition 	to
6:17-cv-00313-JAG Document 601 Filed in ED/OK on 12/05/22 Page 1 of 5

2
Plaintiff’s 	Motion 	for 	Entry 	of 	Order 	and 	Notice 	of 	Default
(Docket Entry #563).
• Sunoco Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Garnishment Proceedings
against Gunvor USA, LLC, Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for
Entry of Order and Notice of Default (Docket Entry #564).
• Sunoco Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Garnishment Proceeding
against Marathon Petroleum Company, LP (Docket Entry #565).
• Sunoco Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Garnishment Proceeding
against Marathon Petroleum Logistics Services, LLC (Docket
Entry #566).
• Sunoco Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Garnishment Proceeding
against Marathon Petroleum Supply and Trading LLC (Docket
Entry #568).
• Sunoco Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Garnishment Proceeding
against Motiva Enterprises, LLC (Docket Entry #569).
• Sunoco Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Garnishment Proceeding
against Phillips 66 Company (Docket Entry #570).
• Sunoco Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Garnishment Proceeding
against Range Resources Corporation (Docket Entry #571).
• Sunoco Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Garnishment Proceeding
against Saratoga RP East, LLC, Opposition to Plaintiff’s
Motion for Entry of Order and Notice of Default (Docket Entry
#572).
• Sunoco Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Garnishment Proceeding
against Truman Arnold Companies (Docket Entry #573).
• Sunoco Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Garnishment Proceedings
against Valero Marketing & Supply Co., Opposition to
Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Order and Notice of Default
(Docket Entry #574).
• Sunoco Defendants’ Verified Motion to Enjoin Garnishments and
Any Further Enforcement Efforts (Docket Entry #580).
6:17-cv-00313-JAG Document 601 Filed in ED/OK on 12/05/22 Page 2 of 5

3
• 	Plaintiff’s 	Motion 	to 	Strike 	Defendants’ 	Motion 	to 	Enjoin
Garnishments 	and 	Any 	Further 	Enforcement 	Efforts 	(Docket
Entry #592).
These matters were referred to the undersigned for the entry
of 	Findings 	and 	Recommendation 	by 	United 	States 	District 	Judge
John A Gibney, Jr. who presides over this case.
After beginning their respective arguments, counsel for both
parties 	expressed 	a 	desire 	to 	negotiate 	possible 	resolution 	to
the 	pending 	issues 	before 	the 	Court. 	Through 	their 	commendable
efforts, 	the 	parties 	reached 	a 	set 	of 	stipulated 	agreements 	with
regard 	to 	the 	subject 	motions 	coming 	on 	for 	hearing. 	These
stipulations 	are 	as 	follows 	as 	reflected 	on 	the 	record 	at 	the
hearing:
1) Based 	upon 	their 	representations 	on 	the 	record, 	both 	in
writing 	and 	through 	their 	counsel 	at 	the 	hearing,
Defendants 	will 	not 	attempt 	to 	stop 	the 	distribution
process 	of 	the 	proceeds 	deposited 	with 	the 	Judgment
Administrator to the class members going forward.
2) Defendants 	reserve 	any 	rights 	that 	they 	have 	on 	their
pending appeals.
3) Based 	upon 	Defendants’ 	representations, 	Plaintiff 	will
dismiss 	all 	of 	the 	pending 	garnishment 	actions 	without
prejudice 	to 	reinstituting 	them. 	This 	will 	effectively
6:17-cv-00313-JAG Document 601 Filed in ED/OK on 12/05/22 Page 3 of 5

4
moot 	Defendants’ 	various 	motions 	to 	dismiss 	the 	pending
garnishments 	proceedings 	(Docket 	Entry 	Nos. 	559-566, 	568-
574). 	No 	new 	garnishment 	actions 	will 	be 	initiated 	by
Plaintiff so long as all parties continue to abide by their
agreements. 	Plaintiff 	also 	agrees 	to 	withdraw 	the 	Motion
for 	Entry 	of 	Order 	and 	Notice 	of 	Default 	Under 	12 	Okla.
Stat. § 1179 (Docket Entry #535).
4) Defendants 	agree 	that 	they 	will 	not 	oppose 	on 	any 	basis,
including 	jurisdiction, 	or 	take a 	position 	with regard 	to
the attorney fee schedule represented in Docket Entry #577
at 	page 	6. 	This 	Court 	recommends 	that 	the 	referenced
schedule 	be 	adopted 	by 	the 	District 	Court 	moving 	forward
on 	Class 	Counsel’s 	Motion 	for 	Attorney’s 	Fees 	and
Litigation 	Expenses 	and 	Class 	Representative’s 	Motion 	for
Case 	Contribution 	Award. 	Defendants 	agree 	to 	withdraw
their opposition to the schedule.
5) Defendants agree to withdraw the Verified Motion to Enjoin
Garnishments 	and 	Any 	Further 	Enforcement 	Efforts 	(Docket
Entry 	#580) 	thereby 	mooting 	Plaintiff’s 	Motion 	to 	Strike
Defendants’ 	Motion 	to 	Enjoin 	Garnishments 	and 	Any 	Further
Enforcement Efforts (Docket Entry #592).
IT 	IS 	THEREFORE 	THE 	RECOMMENDATION 	OF 	THIS 	COURT 	that 	the
agreement 	of 	the 	parties 	set 	forth 	herein 	be 	adopted 	by 	the
6:17-cv-00313-JAG Document 601 Filed in ED/OK on 12/05/22 Page 4 of 5

5
presiding 	District 	Judge 	to 	govern 	the 	actions 	of 	the 	parties
moving forward in this case.
The 	parties 	are 	given 	fourteen 	(14) 	days 	from 	the 	date 	of
service of these Findings and Recommendation to file any objections
with the Clerk of the Court together with a supporting brief. 	The
failure to object will preclude appellate review of these Findings
and Recommendation.
IT IS SO ORDERED this _____ day of December, 2022.
______________________________
KIMBERLY E. WEST
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
5th
6:17-cv-00313-JAG Document 601 Filed in ED/OK on 12/05/22 Page 5 of 5