21 results for 'cat:"Energy" AND cat:"Class Action"'.
J. Hall trims a class action against an energy services broker that was sued by a group of property owners who say it charged them exorbitant variable monthly rates for gas services following the automatic renewal of their respective agreements. The only claim to survive is one for implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, finding the property owners reasonably expected their rates to be based on current market prices or, at the very least, not double the initial rate after their contracts were renewed.
Court: USDC Eastern District of New York, Judge: Hall, Filed On: April 15, 2024, Case #: 2:22cv3664, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: energy, class Action
J. Kleeh partially dismissed a class action between a family partnership that owns mineral royalty interests and the operator of some of those oil and gas estates. Two of the family partnership’s counts are dismissed because the portions of state law they reference do not create a cause of action, and two other counts are barred by the “Gist of the Action” doctrine. The class allegations are sufficiently argued, as are the claims for attorney fees and punitive damages, so they survive the motion to dismiss.
Court: USDC Northern District of West Virginia, Judge: Kleeh, Filed On: March 26, 2024, Case #: 1:22cv1, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: energy, class Action, Contract
[Consolidated.] J. Jones finds the district court improperly remanded this oil and gas royalties dispute to state court. The landowner and stockholders initiated this class action alleging that the energy company had underpaid more than $100 million in royalties. The company says the Class Action Fairness Act requires the case be heard in federal court, while the district court reasoned the Act's local controversy exception supported remand in spite of a third of the royalties recipients being located in other states and countries. The Act ties principal injuries sustained to the entire class, not a subset. No exception exists for cases in which most parties sustain the principal injury in the forum state, but some do not. Vacated.
Court: 5th Circuit, Judge: Jones , Filed On: March 1, 2024, Case #: 23-40591 , Categories: energy, Jurisdiction, class Action
J. Edison recommends granting, in part, a retirement association and pension fund's motion for class certification in their securities action against an oil exploration and production company. The company has rebutted certain claims falling beyond 2018; therefore, the class period will be limited to September 2016 to February 2018.
Court: USDC Southern District of Texas, Judge: Edison, Filed On: February 9, 2024, Case #: 4:21cv575 , NOS: Securities/Commodities/Exchange - Other Suits, Categories: energy, Securities, class Action
Want access to unlimited case records and advanced research tools? Create your free CasePortal account now. No credit card required to register.
Try CasePortal for Free
J. Merchant tosses a class action lawsuit alleging a lithium refiner made false or misleading statements in connection with a troubled mining project located in North Carolina. The project involved extracting spodumene, which would then be converted into lithium hydroxide for use in electric vehicles. However, the company’s stock price suffered a 20% drop after a Reuters article cited issues with the project, including its failure to obtain the necessary zoning permits from the local government. The litigant’s claims fail to establish scienter.
Court: USDC Eastern District of New York, Judge: Merchant, Filed On: January 18, 2024, Case #: 1:21cv4161, NOS: Securities/Commodities/Exchange - Other Suits, Categories: energy, Securities, class Action
J. Carney finds that the district court properly found for an electricity provider in class claims alleging deceptive business practices. Lead plaintiff's estate alleged the competitive rates that had been promised were actually higher than that charged by the local incumbent utility, but the consumer received what had been offered under the plain terms of the contract. Affirmed.
Court: 2nd Circuit, Judge: Carney, Filed On: December 13, 2023, Case #: 22-1026, Categories: energy, class Action, Contract
J. Liu answers the court of appeals' question as to whether the citizen's suit, which claims Californians are owed $2.5 billion for PG&E-caused power shutoffs, is barred by public utility code. The suit is barred because it does not allege the shutoffs were unnecessary or that they violated code.
Court: California Supreme Court, Judge: Liu , Filed On: November 20, 2023, Case #: S273340, Categories: energy, Agency, class Action
J. Fischer finds the district court properly certified the gas well royalty interest owners' case against the production company as a class action. That the company requires the owners to pay a share of the processing costs charged by midstream companies to remove liquids can be resolved on a class-wide basis because the company commingles gas before that processing occurs. Affirmed.
Court: Oklahoma Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Fischer , Filed On: November 16, 2023, Case #: 119052, Categories: energy, class Action, Contract
J. Huber finds the district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of a fuel station brand in this breach of contract and fraud suit brought by an intervening minerals entity. The intervenor alleges that the fuel stations underpaid royalties on gas production. Class certification was originally denied in a related suit against British Petroleum due to the necessity for individual analyses. The tolling period for the statute of limitations ended upon the district court’s denial of class certification, not with the mandate after the appellate court affirmed the district court. Affirmed.
Court: Oklahoma Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Huber, Filed On: November 16, 2023, Case #: 119379, Categories: energy, class Action, Contract
J. Jackson grants the well owner's motion to certify class in this action alleging a "breach of the implied duty to market" against the defendant well operator and lessees. The well owner asserts that the defendants improperly deduct royalties for processing "for purposes of obtaining marketability," and the court concludes that it has sufficiently satisfied its burden to establish the case as a class action.
Court: USDC Eastern District of Oklahoma, Judge: Jackson, Filed On: November 8, 2023, Case #: 6:17cv101, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: energy, class Action
J. Kleeh grants the hydrocarbon exploration company's motion to certify two questions to the West Virginia Supreme Court in the Harrison County landowners' class action disputing the company's practice of deducting post-production costs and not paying royalties based on the price received at the point of sale. The questions are: 1). Do the requirements of Wellman v. Energy Resources and Estate of Tawney v. Columbia Natural Resources, extend only to the “first available market” as opposed to the “point of sale” when the duty to market is implicated? and 2). Does the first marketable product rule extend beyond gas to require a lessee to pay royalties on natural gas liquids (NGLs), and if it does, do the lessors share in the cost of processing, manufacturing, and transporting the NGLs to sale?
Court: USDC Northern District of West Virginia, Judge: Kleeh , Filed On: October 10, 2023, Case #: 1:17cv88, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: energy, class Action, Contract
[Consolidated.] J. Kleeh denies the motion by the named plaintiffs in three separate class actions to consolidate their respective complaints against the hydrocarbon exploration company for breach of contract in royalty payments on oil and gas leases, finding absent the “rigorous” analysis for class certification, the “cases lack the requisite common question of law or fact for consolidation” since “individualized analysis is required for each lease and royalty provision, and each action contains distinct leases and royalty provisions.”
Court: USDC Northern District of West Virginia, Judge: Kleeh, Filed On: September 27, 2023, Case #: 1:20cv222, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: energy, class Action, Contract
J. Ross rejects a motion for summary judgment and preserves a putative class action suit filed against an independent energy service company with claims for breach of contract alleging it violated the terms of its variable rate plan when it charged unreasonably high rates for electricity usage. The defendant fails to show that its customers’ rates were determined solely by its actual and estimated supply costs and not a combination of other metrics the plaintiffs have proposed in its complaint that were not expressly allowed under the agreement.
Court: USDC Eastern District of New York, Judge: Ross, Filed On: August 14, 2023, Case #: 1:18cv2949, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: energy, class Action
J. Sargus grants in part the landowners' motion for summary judgment, ruling that the natural gas extracted by the energy company does not become "marketable" under the parties' lease until it is processed and separated; therefore, the energy company cannot deduct the processing costs and has underpaid royalties to the landowners since the inception of the lease agreements. Therefore, the landowners are entitled to judgment on the interpretation of the "market enhancement" provision, but the issue of damages will be tried to a jury.
Court: USDC Southern District of Ohio, Judge: Sargus, Filed On: August 4, 2023, Case #: 2:20cv2028, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: energy, class Action, Contract
J. Morrison partially declines to dismiss a class action alleging that an energy service company charged one of its customers an unreasonably high variable rate for its monthly energy costs following the end of its 24-month introductory period. While the customer fails to allege the company violated the express terms of the agreement for purposes of a breach of contract claim, it successfully alleges the company violated the implied terms of the agreement by charging a variable rate that was approximately double the fixed-price rate. It also successfully claims that it was not given sufficient notice as to the rate change.
Court: USDC Eastern District of New York, Judge: Morrison, Filed On: July 21, 2023, Case #: 1:22cv4844, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: energy, class Action, Contract
[Consolidated.] J. Jones finds the bankruptcy and district courts improperly approved two post-date class action settlements regarding the energy corporation’s failure to honor oil-and-gas lease market enhancement clauses prohibiting deduction of postproduction costs to transform extracted gas into a marketable form from lessors’ royalties. The post-confirmation bankruptcy jurisdiction does not extend to the agreements. The voluntary arrangements were already discharged by the bankruptcy. Affirmed and remanded with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
Court: 5th Circuit, Judge: Jones, Filed On: June 8, 2023, Case #: 21-20323, Categories: Bankruptcy, energy, class Action