Case: 21-10027 Document: 00516240369 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/15/2022 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED March 15, 2022 No. 21-10027 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Murphy Oil USA, Incorporated, Plaintiff—Appellant, versus Love's Travel Stops & Country Stores, Incorporated; Gemini Motor Transport; Musket Corporation; Stanley Bowers; Scott Dodd; Larry Jones; Michael Wood; Roy Taylor; Matt Tugman; Edward Washington; Alan Svajda, Defendants—Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:18-CV-1345 Before Smith, Costa, and Wilson, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Murphy Oil sells fuel wholesale to other gas stations and also retail in its own stations. During Hurricane Harvey, fuel carriers for Love’s Travel * Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4. Case: 21-10027 Document: 00516240369 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/15/2022 No. 21-10027 Stops—one of Murphy’s wholesale customers—entered a third-party facility where Murphy stores its product and took 220,000 gallons of fuel that Murphy intended to save for its own gas stations. A week later, Murphy drafted Love’s bank account for the fuel at a rate $0.29/gallon higher than Murphy’s posted wholesale prices on the days the fuel was taken. Murphy later sued Love’s and its fuel carrier for civil theft, conversion, unjust enrichment, and conspiracy. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants, concluding that Murphy had waived its claims by recouping from defendants a special price for the fuel. The court also awarded over a million dollars in attorneys’ fees to the defendants as prevailing parties under the Texas Theft Liability Act. Murphy appeals the summary judgment ruling and the fee award. Having reviewed the briefs, record, and applicable law, and heard oral argument, the judgment is Affirmed. We agree with the waiver holding essentially for the reasons given by the district court. And we see no abuse of discretion in the district court’s fee order, which thoroughly addressed all the concerns Murphy raises. 2