What did the court decide?

The court dismissed the appeal because the parties signed settlement agreements that resolved the dispute, including the pending appeal, and the appellants did not oppose dismissal.

Who is affected by this decision?

The decision affects the named appellants (Blackbuck Petroleum PropCo I LLC and AGP Energy Services LLC) and the appellees (the Bluefin entities, Stanford Petroleum LLC, and Scott Stanford), as it ends the appeal between them.

The appeal is dismissed with prejudice and the appellants must pay the court costs; the settlement terms will govern any remaining obligations between the parties.

Can this dismissal be appealed?

Because the dismissal was entered by the appellate court based on the parties' agreement and was unopposed, there is generally no further appeal from that dismissal, though parties should consult counsel about any narrow procedural options.

Blackbuck Petroleum, Propco I LLC and AGP Energy Services LLC v. Bluefin Resources Propco LLC; Bluefin Resources LLC; Stanford Petroleum LLC; And Scott Stanford

Docket 01-24-00826-CV

Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research

CivilDismissed

Filed: Apr 23, 2026 · 1 week ago
Jurisdiction: Texas
Court: Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)
Type: Lead Opinion
Case type: Civil
Disposition: Dismissed
Docket: 01-24-00826-CV

Appeal from the trial court's October 11, 2024 order denying a motion to compel arbitration

Summary

The First District of Texas dismissed an appeal brought by Blackbuck Petroleum PropCo I LLC and AGP Energy Services LLC from a trial court order denying their motion to compel arbitration. The parties executed a mediated settlement and a signed settlement, release, and confidentiality agreement that expressly resolved all past and present claims, including the pending appeal, and required dismissals with prejudice. Appellees moved to dismiss the appeal under the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure; appellants did not oppose. The court granted the unopposed motion and dismissed the appeal, taxing costs against the appellants.

Issues Decided

Whether a mediated settlement and a signed settlement, release, and confidentiality agreement that resolves all past and present claims and expressly references the pending appeal permits dismissal of that appeal
Whether the appellate court should dismiss an appeal when the parties jointly request dismissal under the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure

Court's Reasoning

The court relied on the parties' signed settlement agreements, which expressly resolved all claims and the pending appeal and committed the parties to file dismissals with prejudice. Because appellees filed a motion to dismiss supported by the signed agreements and appellants did not oppose, the court found dismissal appropriate under the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure and therefore dismissed the appeal and taxed costs against appellants.

Authorities Cited

Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure42.1(a)(2)(A), 42.1(c), 42.1(d), 43.2(f)

Parties

Appellant: Blackbuck Petroleum PropCo I LLC
Appellant: AGP Energy Services LLC
Appellee: Bluefin Resources PropCo LLC
Appellee: Bluefin Resources LLC
Appellee: Stanford Petroleum LLC
Appellee: Scott Stanford
Judge: Chief Justice Adams
Judge: Justice Guerra
Judge: Justice Guiney

Key Dates

Trial court order denying motion to compel arbitration: 2024-10-11
Opinion issued: 2026-04-23

What You Should Do Next

1
File any required dismissal documents in trial court
If not already filed, ensure the stipulated dismissals with prejudice required by the settlement agreement are filed in the trial court to conclude the underlying case as agreed.
2
Review and comply with settlement terms
Parties should review the settlement, release, and confidentiality agreement to confirm and perform any obligations and deadlines set out in the agreement.
3
Consult counsel about costs and enforcement
Appellants should consult their attorney about the taxation of costs against them and about enforcement or interpretation issues under the settlement agreement.

Frequently Asked Questions

What did the court decide?: The court dismissed the appeal because the parties signed settlement agreements that resolved the dispute, including the pending appeal, and the appellants did not oppose dismissal.
Who is affected by this decision?: The decision affects the named appellants (Blackbuck Petroleum PropCo I LLC and AGP Energy Services LLC) and the appellees (the Bluefin entities, Stanford Petroleum LLC, and Scott Stanford), as it ends the appeal between them.
What happens next?: The appeal is dismissed with prejudice and the appellants must pay the court costs; the settlement terms will govern any remaining obligations between the parties.
Can this dismissal be appealed?: Because the dismissal was entered by the appellate court based on the parties' agreement and was unopposed, there is generally no further appeal from that dismissal, though parties should consult counsel about any narrow procedural options.

The above suggestions and answers are AI-generated for informational purposes only. They may contain errors. NoticeRegistry assumes no responsibility for their accuracy. Consult a qualified attorney before relying on them.

Full Filing Text

Opinion issued April 23, 2026

In The

Court of Appeals
For The

First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-24-00826-CV
———————————
BLACKBUCK PETROLEUM PROPCO I LLC AND AGP ENERGY
SERVICES LLC, Appellants
V.
BLUEFIN RESOURCES PROPCO LLC; BLUEFIN RESOURCES LLC;
STANFORD PETROLEUM LLC; AND SCOTT STANFORD, Appellees

On Appeal from the 215th District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Case No. 2024-08213

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellants Blackbuck Petroleum PropCo I LLC and AGP Energy Services

LLC filed a notice of appeal from the trial court’s October 11, 2024 order denying

their motion to compel arbitration.
Appellees Bluefin Resources PropCo LLC, Bluefin Resources LLC, Stanford

Petroleum LLC, and Scott Stanford have now filed a motion to dismiss the appeal,

noting that the parties have entered into a mediated settlement agreement, which

incorporates a settlement, release, and confidentiality agreement that “resolve[s] any

and all past and present claims and causes of action” between the parties, including

the “appeal pending before the First District Court of Appeals (No. 01-24-00826-

CV).” In the settlement, release, and confidentiality agreement, the parties agreed

to “file dismissals with prejudice of all claims.” Appellees therefore request that this

Court effectuate the parties’ agreement by disposing of this appeal by dismissal. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(2)(A).

Copies of the mediated settlement agreement and the settlement, release, and

confidentiality agreement, both of which are signed by the parties, are attached to

appellees’ motion to dismiss on file with this Court. See id. 42.1(a)(2). Appellants

filed a response to appellees’ motion to dismiss, stating that they are unopposed to

the motion and relief requested therein. No opinion has issued. See id. 42.1(c).

Accordingly, we grant appellees’ unopposed motion and dismiss the appeal,

with costs to be taxed against the appellants. See id. 42.1(a)(2)(A), (d), 43.2(f).

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Adams and Justices Guerra and Guiney.