In WMH Farms v. Apache Corporation the Third Circuit Court of Appeal reversed summary judgment in favor of plaintiff/landowner WMH against lessee JP Oil and dismissed JP’s third-party demand against Walter Oil and Gas.
Then the Louisiana Supreme Court reversed the court of appeal, reinstated the summary judgment, and remanded. We will report on the
Yes, says Trivista Oil Company LLC v. Fort Apache Energy, Inc., Trivista sued Fort Apache for poaching its mineral lessors and obtaining top-leases in what could have been a more or less typical dispute of that nature. But a Texas court of appeals affirmed dismissal with prejudice of all claims against
In Ageron Energy LLC v. ETC Texas Pipeline, LTD Justice Busby authored a concurring opinion in the denial of a petition for review to the Supreme Court in which he criticized the majority opinion of the Court of Appeals saying it undermines important protections afforded mineral rights owners. To understand this case, see the COA’s
Landowner and mineral owner (that includes you, lessee): Under ETC Texas Pipeline, Ltd. v. Ageron Energy, LLC, your right to sue for damages for tort or trespass could pass into history before you even know you have a claim. Here’s why:
Under the legal-injury rule (more on that later), a property claim based on trespass
See yesterday’s post on Iskandia Operating, LLC v. SWEPI, LP
SWEPI’s motion for summary judgment alleged that Iskandia presented no evidence of one or more elements of its trespass claim, noting that the Supreme Court of Texas has never recognized a cause of action for trespass based on deep subsurface water migration (to which some
Iskandia Operating Inc. v. SWEPI, LP d/b/a Shell Western E & P reversed summary judgment for the defendant in a subsurface trespass claim involving injection of large amounts of produced water.
The facts
Iskandia produces oil from 100 wells across 5,000 acres from a shallow zone of the Delaware Mountain Group in the Dimmitt
Co-author Brittany Blakey
Wagner v. Exxon Mobil Corporation is an example of the misfortune that can befall the purchaser who assumes the burden of comprehensive, one-sided indemnity obligations. We will disregard evidentiary and other issues in this case and will focus on indemnity.
The parties executed an Agreement to Purchase and Sell in 1994 whereby
The Kingfish would be proud of the Louisiana Supreme Court in Louisiana Ex Rel Tureau v. BEPCO, L.P. et al. The issues were the prescriptive period applicable to a citizen suit for injunctive relief under R.S. 30:16 and whether the petition stated a cause of action under R.S. 30:14 and 30:16. The court held that
Withrow v. Chevron is another Louisiana legacy lawsuit, this one claiming that defendants Chevron and Vernon E. Faulconer, Inc., and their predecessors, improperly disposed of toxic and hazardous oilfield wastes in unlined earthen pits causing leaks, spills and other surface and subsurface damages and contaminating the soil and groundwater.
Defendants’ filed a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the whole shebang for failure to state a claim. To defeat the motion the plaintiff had to plead specific facts, not mere conclusory allegations or legal conclusions masquerading as factual conclusions. On the other hand, a complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.
This the court did not offer much in the way of reasoning for its rulings; there will be plenty of time for that. The order is helpful as a laundry list of claims often asserted by legacy plaintiffs.
The court considered the following claims:
Continue Reading Louisiana Legacy Lawsuit Survives Motion to Dismiss
Co-author Jamie Mills*Is it worth spending extra dollars, days, and windshield time to discover what mischief your oil and gas operator might be making on your property? The landowner-plaintiffs in Mustafa v. Americo Energy would certainly say so.
The “discovery rule” offered them no help in their suit against their lessee for negligence when visible soil contamination occurred over two years before suit and was filed and the landowners had not visited the property in over six years. The two-year statute of limitations barred the landowners’ claim.
Continue Reading Landowners Vanquished by the Discovery Rule