Smith v. Chestnut Ridge Storage, LLC
Decision Date | 24 February 2021 |
Docket Number | No. 19-1076,19-1076 |
Citation | 855 S.E.2d 332 |
Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
Parties | Thomas W. SMITH, Thomas W. Smith, Administrator of the Estate of Elizabeth Anne Smith, Rachel Dickhut, Nancy Smith McGregor, Mary Smith Nelson, and Elizabeth Smith Arthur, Petitioners v. CHESTNUT RIDGE STORAGE, LLC, Respondent |
Wade W. Massie, Esq., Penn, Stuart & Eskridge, Abingdon, Virginia, Stephen L. Thompson, Esq., Barth & Thompson, Charleston, West Virginia, Counsel for Petitioners.
Karen Kahle, Esq., Kahle Law Office, Wheeling, West Virginia, Counsel for Respondent.
Howard M. Persinger, III, Esq., Persinger & Persinger, L.C., Charleston, West Virginia, Counsel for Amici West Virginia Land and Mineral Owners’ Association, West Virginia Royalty Owners’ Association, West Virginia Farm Bureau and National Association of Royalty Owners, Appalachia.
In this appeal of a circuit court's order denying Petitioners’1 motion for summary judgment, we consider whether Petitioners are immune from Respondent Chestnut Ridge Storage LLC's ("Chestnut Ridge") lawsuit pursuant to the litigation privilege and the Noerr-Pennington doctrine.2 After review,3 and for the reasons explained herein, we conclude that both of these immunities apply. We therefore reverse the circuit court's order and remand with instructions for the circuit court to enter summary judgment in favor of Petitioners.
Petitioners own an oil and gas estate underlying a track of 4,572 acres located in Monongalia County and Preston County in West Virginia, and Fayette County in Pennsylvania. In 1987, Petitioners executed an oil and gas lease in favor of Fox Oil and Gas, Inc. The Lease was later acquired by Oil & Gas Management, Inc. ("OGM"). Petitioners signed an addendum to the lease on January 26, 1993 ("Addendum"), allowing the lessee to use depleted strata for gas storage. In July of 2007, OGM assigned approximately 2,300 acres of Petitioners’ tract to Chestnut Ridge for a storage project.
In December of 2007, Chestnut Ridge applied to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ("FERC" or the "Commission") for a certificate of public convenience and necessity to construct and operate a storage field. Petitioners intervened in that proceeding and objected to Chestnut Ridge's planned storage project because, they argued, the "areas proposed for storage on their property were not depleted and that the [Addendum] only allows [Chestnut Ridge] to employ depleted strata for storage."
Paragraphs two and three of the Addendum concern storage rights:
Chestnut Ridge did not object to Petitioners intervening in the FERC proceeding. In fact, Chestnut Ridge urged the Commission to allow the intervention, stating that it would "contribute to the development of a complete record (by furnishing assurances that Chestnut Ridge will provide [Petitioners] reasonable compensation for their various leasehold interests ...) and will assist the Commission's decision-making process."
Additionally, Chestnut Ridge did not generally contest the assertion that the gas reserves were not fully depleted. Instead, Chestnut Ridge provided that they intended to negotiate with Petitioners to compensate them for the gas reserves that were still in place. While acknowledging that it had a duty to compensate Petitioners for such gas reserves, Chestnut Ridge argued that any dispute over this issue could be resolved in court, and stated that this issue should not prevent the Commission from approving its proposed storage facility.
The Commission entered an order on August 31, 2009, granting Chestnut Ridge's request. Relevant to the instant case, the Commission's order noted that Petitioners filed a "[t]imely, unopposed" motion to intervene in the FERC proceeding. The Commission's order also provides that Chestnut Ridge did not contest Petitioners’ allegation that the gas reserves were not fully depleted:
The parties agree that the production field is not yet depleted, and Chestnut Ridge does not dispute [Petitioners]’ contention that converting a currently producing field into a storage reservoir would be inconsistent with the provision of the parties’ gas storage addendum. Thus, in assessing the proposal, we consider the burden that the proposed project would impose on property owners; [Petitioners] identify this burden as the loss of royalty payments that property owners would realize but for gas being left in place as part of the development of the proposed storage facility. This burden constitutes economic harm, and as such, can be remedied by Chestnut Ridge paying property owners the equivalent of what they would have received in royalties for gas that could have been produced, but that will instead remain in situ to serve as cushion gas to support the storage facility. The issue of just compensation is a matter for negotiation between property owners and Chestnut Ridge and if the parties are unable to reach an agreement, just compensation will be determined by appropriate court.
(Emphasis added).
Per the Commission's order, Chestnut Ridge had two years to complete construction of the storage facility. Chestnut Ridge did not complete construction of the storage facility within two years. In August of 2011, it sought a three-year extension to complete the project. Chestnut Ridge's request for an extension of time provided that "commercial and financial factors related to recent changes in the natural gas storage market and the overall state of the economy since the Certificate Order [2009 order] was issued have delayed the Project to date." Petitioners opposed this extension, asserting that Chestnut Ridge had failed to move the project forward in the previous two years. The Commission denied Chestnut Ridge's request to extend the timeframe, finding that Chestnut Ridge failed to take the necessary steps to construct the field, and that the project was not viable.
In July of 2011, Petitioners filed suit against Chestnut Ridge alleging breach of contract and seeking declaratory judgment.4 Chestnut Ridge's answer to this lawsuit included a counterclaim against Petitioners alleging breach of contract, civil conspiracy, slander of title, and seeking declaratory judgment. Chestnut Ridge asserted that Petitioners’ opposition to the FERC certificate breached the duty of good faith and fair dealing, and that the opposition was a "general breach" of the Lease and Addendum. Specifically, Chestnut Ridge asserted that Petitioners’ "continued opposition to the FERC proceeding proximately caused or contributed to the FERC's decision to deny Chestnut Ridge's request for an extension of time to complete construction of the storage project." Finally, Chestnut Ridge's counterclaim sought declaratory relief on two issues:
After discovery was complete, Petitioners filed a motion for summary judgment on the counterclaim, asserting, among other arguments,5 that Chestnut Ridge's claims were barred by the litigation privilege and the Noerr-Pennington doctrine. Chestnut Ridge also filed a motion for summary judgment. It argued that Petitioners’ representations before the Commission that Chestnut Ridge could not store gas until the gas was depleted from the strata resulted in an anticipatory breach of the Addendum. Additionally, Chestnut Ridge argued that Petitioners "relentless and unequivocal" opposition during the FERC proceeding violated the duty of good faith and fair dealing. It also asserted that Petitioners’ "improper and inaccurate" interpretation of the Addendum slandered their title to their gas storage rights. Finally, Chestnut Ridge sought a declaratory judgment that it, the lessee under the Addendum, had the "sole discretion to determine when a stratum or reservoir is depleted" and...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Zappin v. Ramey
... ... quasi-judicial proceedings. Smith v. Chestnut Ridge ... Storage, LLC , 855 S.E.2d 332, 340 (2021); ... ...