Abrams v. Chesapeake Energy Corp.
Decision Date | 21 December 2017 |
Docket Number | No. 4:16-CV-1347,No. 4:16-CV-1343,No. 4:16-CV-1346,No. 4:16-CV-1345,4:16-CV-1343,4:16-CV-1345,4:16-CV-1346,4:16-CV-1347 |
Parties | PATRICIA L. ABRAMS, Individually and as Trustee of the Gertrude E. May Irrevocable Residential/Income Only Trust, et. al., Plaintiffs. v. CHESAPEAKE ENERGY CORPORATION, et. al., Defendants. PAUL H. ARNOLD, Plaintiffs. v. CHESAPEAKE ENERGY CORPORATION, et. al., Defendants. ROBERT C. ABRAMS, JR., Plaintiffs. v. CHESAPEAKE ENERGY CORPORATION, et. al., Defendants. KYLIE E. AHERN, a/k/a Kylie E. Perry, Plaintiffs. v. CHESAPEAKE ENERGY CORPORATION, et. al., Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Pennsylvania |
(Judge Brann)
In the novel The Fellowship of the Ring, J.R.R. Tolkien, writes "Short cuts make long delays." The hundreds of Plaintiffs here have attempted a short cut by moving for this Court to direct that the parties be permitted to proceed as a class before the American Arbitration Association, ("AAA") effectively avoiding the considerable filing fees associated with that organization. This is not the state of the law in this Circuit, however, and this attempted short cut has long delayed the prosecution of this action in arbitration proceedings and has clogged the Court's docket with four actions brought by 674 plaintiffs, detailing thirty-eight counts against ten defendants resulting in eighteen pending motions. After reviewing all of the foregoing, I reach the ineluctable conclusion that much of this litigationshould have been brought in arbitration proceedings initially; very little belongs in this Court.
Civil action number 4:16-CV-1343 is a two-hundred thirty (230) page, five-hundred eighty-two (582) paragraph amended complaint asserting ten (10) causes of action against eleven (11) oil and gas company defendants brought by three-hundred fifty-four (354) plaintiffs.
Civil action number 4:16-CV-1345 is a one-hundred eighty-three (183) page, four-hundred seventy-three (473) paragraph amended complaint asserting ten (10) causes of action against eleven (11) oil and gas company defendants brought by two-hundred twelve (212) plaintiffs.
Civil action number 4:16-CV-1346 is a one-hundred fifty-one (151) page, three-hundred seventy-seven (377) paragraph amended complaint asserting nine (9) causes of action against eleven (11) oil and gas company defendants brought by seventy-six (76) plaintiffs.
Civil action number 4:16-CV-1347 is a one-hundred thirty-one (131) page, three-hundred forty (340) paragraph amended complaint asserting nine (9) causes of action against eleven (11) oil and gas company defendants brought by thirty-two (32) plaintiffs.
The four actions captioned above are not consolidated actions. However, for the sake of judicial efficiency, based on the large number of Plaintiffs, with the same counsel, bringing the same claims, against the same Defendants, I am addressing all four in one Memorandum Opinion. Any factual differences between these cases have been footnoted.
It is well established that "the standard for motions to compel arbitration depends on the circumstances."1 "When it is apparent, based on 'the face of a complaint, and documents relied upon in the complaint,' that certain of a party's claims 'are subject to an enforceable arbitration clause, a motion to compel arbitration should be considered under a Rule 12(b)(6) standard without discovery's delay.'"2 "However, limited discovery and review of a renewed motion under a summary judgment standard is appropriate where the validity of the arbitration agreement is at issue."3
A court may compel arbitration only where there is "no genuine issue of fact concerning the formation of the agreement" to arbitrate and, in making thisdecision, a court must give "the party opposing arbitration 'the benefit of all reasonable doubts and inferences that may arise.'"4
The Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA") "requires courts to enforce the bargain of the parties to arbitrate"5 and "requires courts to place arbitration agreements 'on equal footing with all other contracts.'"6 "Consistent with [the] text [of the FAA], courts must 'rigorously enforce' arbitration agreements according to their terms, including terms that 'specify with whom the parties choose to arbitrate their disputes'..."7
A. It is undisputed that the lease clauses at issue here require arbitration; however, I will not direct the AAA to proceed with class arbitration.
"Courts presume that the parties intend courts, not arbitrators, to decide what we have called disputes about 'arbitrability.'"8 "These include questions such as 'whether the parties are bound by a given arbitration clause,' or 'whether an arbitration clause in a concededly binding contract applies to a particular type ofcontroversy.'"9 "Arbitration is a matter of contract and a party cannot be required to submit to arbitration any dispute which he has not agreed so to submit."10
There are multiple lease clauses, all of which Plaintiffs have designated titles. The first was titled both "Mandatory Arbitration Provision' and 'Mandatory Arbitration Provision 1' and reads as follows:
The remainder of the leases contain 'Mandatory Arbitration Provision 2,' which states:
A third lease clause, Plaintiffs' titled 'Mandatory Arbitration Provision,' which I will retitle 'Mandatory Arbitration Provision 3,' states:
Arbitration. Any question concerning this lease or performance there under shall be ascertained and determined by three disinterested arbitrators, one thereof to be appointed by Lessor, one by the Lessee and third by the two so appointed as aforesaid and the award of such collective group shall be final and conclusive. Arbitration proceedings hereunder shall be conducted at the county seat or [sic] the county where the...
To continue reading
Request your trial