Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

Experience a New Era in Legal Research with Free Access to Lexis+

Am. Cent. E. Tex. Gas Co. v. Union Pac. Res. Group, Inc.

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

January 27, 2004, Filed

No. 02-41010

Opinion

 [*2]  EDWARD C. PRADO, Circuit Judge.

Duke Energy, et al. (Duke) brings this appeal of the district court's confirmation of an arbitration award in favor of Appellee, American Central Eastern Texas, et al. (ACET). The arbitration award at issue involved monopolization claims asserted by ACET against Duke under § 2 of the Sherman Act. The arbitrator found that Duke had a monopoly in gas processing in Panola County, Texas, and that Duke had violated § 2 of the Sherman Act by refusing to grant ACET a new gas processing contract for additional gas volume with the purpose of preventing ACET from competing with Duke.  [**2]  Duke appeals the district court's confirmation of that award on the grounds that the arbitrator manifestly disregarded the law in making  [*3]  the award, and that the award is arbitrary and capricious, violates public policy, and is beyond the scope of the arbitrator's authority.

I. BACKGROUND

ACET and Duke are companies that participate in the natural gas industry in Panola County, Texas. ACET is predominately a "gatherer" of natural gas liquids. Gatherers contract with "producers"--those who extract the gas from the ground--to gather the extracted gas and then either ship it to a delivery point or ship it to a processing plant. ACET also offers "bundled" gathering and processing services, whereby producers may hire ACET to gather their gas and also have it processed for them--essentially a one-stop shop. ACET is able to offer bundled services to its customers at a price that is still profitable because ACET's gathering technology is efficient and low-cost.

Duke primarily operates as a gas "processor," although it also performs some gathering services. In offering the bundled services of gas gathering and processing, ACET subcontracted with Duke to process the gas gathered [**3]  from ACET's customers. The dispute in this case arises from ACET's dealings with Duke for its processing services, and ACET's desire to increase its customer base and its resulting need to acquire more processing capacity in the Panola County market.

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

93 Fed. Appx. 1 *; 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 1216 **; 2004-1 Trade Cas. (CCH) P74,271; 164 Oil & Gas Rep. 1

AMERICAN CENTRAL EASTERN TEXAS GAS COMPANY, Limited Partnership; AMERICAN CENTRAL GAS COMPANIES INC., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. UNION PACIFIC RESOURCES GROUP INC.; ET AL., Defendants, DUKE ENERGY FUELS LLC; DUKE ENERGY FIELD SERVICES INC., Defendants-Appellants.

Notice:  [**1]  RULES OF THE FIFTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS MAY LIMIT CITATION TO UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS. PLEASE REFER TO THE RULES OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THIS CIRCUIT.

Prior History: Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. USDC No. 01-CV-2208-T.

Disposition: AFFIRMED.

CORE TERMS

arbitrator, processing, arbitration award, antitrust, district court, monopoly power, confirmation, gathering, malls, terms, manifest, anti trust law, anticompetitive, exclusionary, injunction, plant, terms of the contract, monopolization, negotiations, electricity, possessed, producers, contends, compete, arbitrary and capricious, processing service, competitive price, Sherman Act, competitors, contractual

Business & Corporate Compliance, Pretrial Matters, Alternative Dispute Resolution, Judicial Review, Civil Procedure, Appeals, Standards of Review, Clearly Erroneous Review, De Novo Review, Arbitration, General Overview, Labor & Employment Law, Labor Arbitration, Judicial Review, Scope of Authority, International Trade Law, Dispute Resolution, International Commercial Arbitration, Arbitration, Governments, Legislation, Statutory Remedies & Rights, Antitrust & Trade Law, Private Actions, Remedies, Healthcare Law, Healthcare Litigation, Antitrust Actions, Physicians, Standing, Sherman Act, Monopolies & Monopolization, Actual Monopolization, Energy & Utilities Law, Oil & Petroleum Products, Processing & Refining, Regulated Practices, Trade Practices & Unfair Competition, Clayton Act, Damages, Injunctions, Federal Arbitration Act, Natural Gas Industry