8 results for 'cat:"Energy" AND cat:"Class Action" AND cat:"Contract"'.
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
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. 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. 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
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
[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. 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