74 results for 'cat:"Energy" AND cat:"Contract"'.
J. Christopher finds that the trial court properly ruled in favor of the retail electric provider in a dispute with the commercial property owner over its refusal to pay the high rates set by ERCOT in response to the electricity demand during Winter Storm Uri in February 2021. The parties' contract required the electric provider to "adhere to its pre-defined pricing formula" that required the use of the Real Time Index Price. Affirmed.
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals, Judge: Christopher, Filed On: November 30, 2023, Case #: 14-22-00469-CV, Categories: energy, contract
J. Palk partially denies the defendant manufacturer's motion for summary judgment, specifically as to the express warranty claim, in this lawsuit concerning the manufacture and sale of a certain drilling rig. The record shows that the oil and gas company used a purchasing agent to acquire the rig, meaning it is "entitled to enforce the terms of the Contract." The court notes that it will address "the remaining issues" in a separate order.
Court: USDC Western District of Oklahoma , Judge: Palk, Filed On: November 21, 2023, Case #: 5:18cv790, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: energy, Warranty, contract
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
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. Rosenthal refuses to dismiss a Houston-based company's action seeking more than $1 million in damages against two of its former executives who face criminal action in Mexico. Contrary to their argument, U.S. law, rather than Mexican law, applies to the case; therefore, they are not shielded from providing discovery of documents that may be incriminating.
Court: USDC Southern District of Texas, Judge: Rosenthal , Filed On: October 12, 2023, Case #: 4:22cv3385, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: energy, Choice Of Law, contract
J. Hixon finds the commission improperly determined that the gas purchaser and supplier were subject to day-to-day standalone contracts from the time the complaint was filed through its final order. The supplier filed its complaint with the commission asserting that fees and terms and conditions of a replacement contract were unjust and discriminatory. The supplier never accepted or executed the replacement contract and an interim arrangement was made between the companies pending the outcome of the underlying action. The commission has authority to adjust fees collecting during the period in which the complaint was pending in accordance with the final fee, and the supplier is not entitled to adjustment of fees paid before the complaint was filed. Affirmed in part. Reversed in part and remanded.
Court: Oklahoma Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Hixon, Filed On: October 12, 2023, Case #: 119361, Categories: Corporations, energy, contract
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
J. Goodwin grants the home loan financing company’s motion for judgment on the pleadings in a Mingo County homeowner’s suit claiming the company financed the deceptive sale of a solar panel system that was not properly installed and provided him no benefit. Absent some details on how it shared in the profits with the now-defunct contractor that installed the solar panels on the home, the court finds the company did not conspire with its partners to conceal the terms of their agreements and could not foresee any potential misconduct by the contractor.
Court: USDC Southern District of West Virginia, Judge: Goodwin, Filed On: October 3, 2023, Case #: 2:23cv84, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: energy, Fraud, contract
J. Xinis grants summary judgment to the environmental waste management firm that was sued by its former Engineering and Nuclear Safety Manager for unjust enrichment after the hire was not placed on a government contract in alleged violation of the parties’ agreement. His allegations were speculative and the company would not have benefitted from including the manager in the bid for the contract.
Court: USDC Maryland, Judge: Xinis, Filed On: September 28, 2023, Case #: 8:21cv2059, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: energy, Government, 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. Fischer finds the appeals court improperly ruled in favor of a drilling business in an indemnification action. The energy company was not required to provide notice of its intent to seek indemnification from the business to recoup a $50,000 fine assessed by the state of Ohio for the drilling company's pollution of natural resources because the parties' contract expressly abrogated standard notice requirements. Reversed.
Court: Ohio Supreme Court, Judge: Fischer, Filed On: September 27, 2023, Case #: 2023-Ohio-3398, Categories: energy, Indemnification, contract
J. Rodriguez finds a lower court ruled correctly in granting summary judgment to an oil company in a convoluted dispute with a property owner over “the validity of oil and gas leases and related partnership claims” after the oil company allowed its lease with the property owner to lapse in what he said was a breach of contract and fraud. There is “no evidence” of the company and property owner’s “intent to be business partners,” and therefore the oil company did not breach any agreements with the owner by failing to proactively communicate with him about the end of his lease. Affirmed.
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals, Judge: Rodriguez, Filed On: September 27, 2023, Case #: 08-22-00129-CV, Categories: energy, Real Estate, contract
J. Edmondson finds the court of appeals improperly reversed the trial court's summary judgment in favor of the petroleum lessor. Exhibits presented during summary proceedings were insufficient to show a material fact that a well was commercially profitable. An overriding royalty interest may be extinguished by an extinguishment of the working interest from which it was fashioned by the lessee's surrender in substantial compliance with the lease. The appeals court opinion is vacated. The trial court's judgment is reversed, and the matter remanded for further proceedings.
Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court, Judge: Edmondson, Filed On: September 19, 2023, Case #: 119810, Categories: energy, Property, contract
J. DeGravelles grants a renewed request for dismissal from an oil and gas corporation tasked with overseeing the state-ordered cleanup of a former Superfund site. A subcontractor on the restoration project has failed to make sufficient allegations to support its claim for unjust enrichment against the supervisor of an industry fund for the cleanup operation corporation. Because the subcontractor has a contractual remedy against the general contractor for the job, the subcontractor is precluded from bringing an unjust enrichment against the corporation for $887,386 in unpaid invoices.
Court: USDC Middle District of Louisiana, Judge: DeGravelles, Filed On: September 14, 2023, Case #: 3:22cv62, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: energy, Environment, contract
J. Kennelly partially grants a sued wind turbine manufacturer’s motion for costs from the underlying contract interference suit with the suing Panamanian energy company. The court previously granted the turbine manufacturer summary judgment on all claims brought by the energy company, which alleged that the manufacturer wouldn’t allow the energy company to connect to Panama’s national electric grid via a substation the manufacturer owned. The the manufacturer petition the court for $182,661.56 in costs, the court only grants it $121,672.83.
Court: USDC Northern District of Illinois, Judge: Kennelly, Filed On: September 7, 2023, Case #: 1:20cv5035, NOS: Other Personal Injury - Torts - Personal Injury, Categories: energy, Attorney Fees, contract
J. Taylor sustains the contractor's appeal to recover partial termination for convenience, delay, and constructive changes costs, and the reversal of the government’s assessment of liquidated damages from a contract for the construction of oil water separator systems and the installation of new turbine pit sump pumps inside the powerhouse at the Lower Monumental Dam in Washington state. The government had used the original contract completion date to assess liquidated damages. That date was based on the contractor's installation of the main pump units. Following the partial termination, the contract no longer required performance of that work and the substantial completion date was no longer applicable, and no new contract completion date was established for the non-terminated work. The original completion date was no longer applicable, and the government is not entitled to assess liquidated damages based upon that date.
Court: Armed Services Board Of Contract Appeals, Judge: Taylor , Filed On: August 25, 2023, Case #: 62957, Categories: energy, Government, contract
J. Kleeh grants the oil and gas exploration company's motion to certify the following questions to the West Virginia Supreme Court in the Pleasants County landowner's suit disputing royalty payments: 1) Is there an implied duty to market for leases containing an in-kind royalty provision? and 2) Do the requirements for the deductions of post-production expenses from Wellman v. Energy Resources, Inc., 557 S.E.2d 254 (W. Va. 2001) and Estate of Tawney v. Columbia Natural Resources, 633 S.E.2d 22 (W. Va. 2006), apply to leases containing an in-kind royalty provision?
Court: USDC Northern District of West Virginia, Judge: Kleeh , Filed On: August 25, 2023, Case #: 1:22cv51, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: energy, Business Practices, contract
J. Campbell grants a County's motion for summary judgment concerning a mining company's claims that it issued it a permit that contained outdated flow rates, and then refused to review a report completed by a hydrologist, which cost it upwards of $8 million for complying with "unnecessary stabilization demands." However, the County sufficiently showed that the claims are time-barred under the statute of limitations.
Court: USDC Arizona, Judge: Campbell, Filed On: August 24, 2023, Case #: 2:21cv1875, NOS: Other Civil Rights - Civil Rights, Categories: Construction, energy, contract
J. Quinn finds that the lower court improperly ruled against the appellant in this suit involving "the disputed interpretation of a shut-in royalty clause included in two leases." The lower court erred in determining that the clause was ambiguous and concluding that the appellees' interpretation was proper. Accordingly, the matter is remanded for further proceedings. Reversed.
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals, Judge: Quinn, Filed On: August 23, 2023, Case #: 07-22-00242-CV, Categories: energy, Real Estate, contract
J. Counts partially grants summary judgment to both sides in a dispute over oil and gas leases, royalty payments and “impermissible costs” that well operators allegedly deducted from their payments to the leaseholder. Among other things, the leaseholder is entitled to summary judgment on a claim that the operators face liability under the Texas Natural Resources Code because the operators failed to make payments to him within the “applicable period” as plainly required by law.
Court: USDC Western District of Texas , Judge: Counts, Filed On: August 10, 2023, Case #: 4:22cv20, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: energy, Real Estate, contract
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. Tufte finds that the district court properly issued an order in a quiet title action for oil and gas leasehold interests. The district court was correct in concluding that a company’s leases terminated under their terms when production ceased and they failed to timely commence reworking
operations. Affirmed.
Court: North Dakota Supreme Court, Judge: Tufte, Filed On: August 2, 2023, Case #: 2023ND142, Categories: energy, Property, contract
J. Duffy finds that a lower court properly found in favor of a buyer who was sued by a seller after the buyer allegedly breached their contract by failing to purchase the seller's interest in an oilfield business. As the lower court established, the buyer was unable to find financing to complete the deal, and this financing was "a condition precedent to an enforceable contract." Affirmed.
Court: New Mexico Court of Appeals, Judge: Duffy, Filed On: July 26, 2023, Case #: A-1-CA-38912, Categories: energy, Tort, contract