The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
DAVID M. POARCH, et al., )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
v. )
) Case No. CIV-23-00798-PRW
UNIT CORPORATION, )
)
Defendant. )
ORDER
Before the Court are Defendant Unit Corporation’s Amended Motion to Stay Case
Pending Bankruptcy Appeal (Dkt. 42), Plaintiffs’ Response (Dkt. 43), and Unit’s Reply
(Dkt. 44). For the reasons that follow, the Court GRANTS the Motion (Dkt. 42).
Background
This is a breach of contract action arising from a dispute involving a chapter 11
bankruptcy plan confirmed in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District
of Texas.1 On December 20, 2023, Unit filed a Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 24), arguing that
(1) the Bankruptcy Court has exclusive jurisdiction to determine the merits of the
Complaint and (2) Plaintiffs released the right to bring the asserted claims under the terms
of the bankruptcy plan. That same day, Unit also filed a motion in the Bankruptcy Court,2
raising the same substantive arguments and seeking (among other relief) an order
1 In re: Unit Petroleum Company, Case No. 20-32738 (Bankr. S.D. Tex.).
2 Dkt. 164 in In re: Unit Petroleum Company, Case No. 20-32738.
compelling Plaintiffs to dismiss this case. On September 20, 2024, The Court stayed and
administratively closed this matter pending resolution of Unit’s Motion in the Bankruptcy
Court (Dkt. 37).
On October 4, 2024, United States Bankruptcy Judge Christopher Lopez denied
Unit’s motion, holding that the claims asserted in this action were not released under the
bankruptcy plan and that Plaintiffs were not barred from proceeding in this Court.3 Unit
appealed that decision as to the release issue.4 The appeal is now fully briefed and pending
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas before United States
District Judge George C. Hanks, Jr.5 Unit now requests that the Court maintain the stay
pending resolution of the appeal.
Legal Standard
“It is well settled that the district court has the power to stay proceedings pending
before it and to control its docket for the purpose of ‘economy of time and effort for itself,
for counsel, and for litigants.’”6 When determining whether to exercise this power, courts
“must weigh competing interests and maintain an even balance.”7 The Tenth Circuit has
cautioned that “the right to proceed in court should not be denied except under the most
3 Dkt. 174 in In re: Unit Petroleum Company, Case No. 20-32738.
4 See Dkt. 176 in In re: Unit Petroleum Company, Case No. 20-32738.
5 Dkts. 4, 6, and 8 in Unit Petroleum Company v. Poarch, CIV-24-4109 (S.D. Tex.).
6 Pet Milk Co. v. Ritter, 323 F.2d 586, 588 (10th Cir. 1963) (quoting Landis v. North
American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936)).
7 Landis, 299 U.S. at 254–55.
extreme circumstances.”8 Relevant factors to the Court’s analysis include whether a stay
would (1) promote judicial economy; (2) avoid confusion and inconsistent results; and (3)
unduly prejudice the parties or create undue hardship.9 As the party requesting the stay,
Unit “must make a clear case of hardship or inequity in being required to go forward.”10
Analysis
The Court finds that a stay pending resolution of the appeal is warranted. As an
initial matter, the Court declines to speculate as to the merits of Unit’s appeal. First, there
is substantial overlap between the issues before both this Court and Judge Hanks. “The
simultaneous prosecution in two different courts of cases relating to the same parties and
issues leads to the wastefulness of time, energy and money.”11 Plaintiffs argue that a stay
might only postpone the Court’s work, frustrating its interest in moving its docket. But
moving forward now would require both courts and the parties to address the same legal
issue concurrently—with the possibility that a reversal on appeal would render those efforts
moot. Accordingly, judicial economy favors awaiting the outcome of the appeal.
8 Commodity Futures Trading Comm’n v. Chilcott Portfolio Mgmt., Inc., 713 F.2d 1477,
1484 (10th Cir. 1983) (cleaned up and citation omitted).
9 Alzheimer’s Inst. of Am. v. Comentis, Inc., No. CIV-09-1366-F, 2010 WL 11508734, at
*2 (W.D. Okla. Dec. 17, 2010) (citing Evergreen Holdings, Inc. v. Sequoia Global, Inc.,
Case No. CIV-09-776-F, 2008 WL 4723008 *2 (W.D. Okla. 2008)). Other courts have
employed other factors, see Johnson v. Textron Aviation, Inc., No. 23-2378-DDC-RES,
2023 WL 7696870, at *5 (D. Kan. Nov. 15, 2023), but the Court follows the parties’ lead
and focuses on these three.
10 Landis, 299 U.S. at 255.
11 Cessna Aircraft Co. v. Brown, 348 F.2d 689, 692 (10th Cir. 1965).
Second, a stay would minimize the risks of confusion and inconsistent results. If
Judge Hanks affirms, this case may proceed unimpeded. If he reverses, Plaintiffs may be
compelled to dismiss their claims. Plaintiffs suggest that the Court should allow discovery
to proceed in the interim, but, as Unit argues, in this breach of contract case, the need for
expedient discovery is outweighed by the possibility of reversal, which could render those
discovery efforts futile.
Third, Unit has demonstrated a clear case of hardship in being required to proceed.
Requiring Unit to litigate this case while simultaneously pursuing appellate relief in Texas
creates undue hardship. Plaintiffs assert that a stay of indefinite duration would prejudice
them but offer no specific explanation as to how. To the contrary, the pending appeal is
fully briefed, and there is no indication that a ruling would be unreasonably delayed. The
possibility of prejudice to Plaintiffs is therefore minimal, especially when weighed against
the possible cost to all the parties of duplicative litigation.
Conclusion
Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that the matter remain stayed and
administratively closed pending resolution of the appeal. The Court DIRECTS the parties
to file a joint status report informing the Court about the outcome of the appeal within
fifteen days of Judge Hanks’s disposition of the matter. Said status report must advise the
Court as to whether the stay should be lifted and the case reopened for further proceedings.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 13th day of June 2025.
PATRICK R. WYRICK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE