Tera, LLC v. Rice Drilling D, LLC

• Decision Date: 07 February 2023
• Docket Number: 21 BE 0047
• Citation: 2023 Ohio 427
• Parties: TERA, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RICE DRILLING D, LLC ET AL., Defendants-Appellants.
• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals

2023-Ohio-427

TERA, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RICE DRILLING D, LLC ET AL., Defendants-Appellants.

No. 21 BE 0047

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Seventh District, Belmont

February 7, 2023

Application for Reconsideration

Atty Charles H. Bean, Thornburg & Bean, Atty. Elizabeth L Glick, Law Office of Elizabeth L. Glick, Atty. Richard A Myser, Myser & Davies, and Atty. Craig J. Wilson, C.J Wilson Law, LLC, for Plaintiff-Appellee and

Atty. John Kevin West, and Atty. John C. Ferrell, Steptoe & Johnson PLLC, and Atty. Melanie M. Norris, Steptoe & Johnson PLLC, for Defendants-Appellants Rice Drilling D, LLC and Gulfport Energy Corporation and

Atty. Anna G. Rotman, and Atty. Kenneth A. Young, Kirkland & Ellis, LLP, for Defendant-Appellant Rice Drilling D, LLC.

BEFORE: David A. D'Apolito, Carol Ann Robb, Judges.

OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY

PER CURIAM.

{¶1} On January 30, 2023, Appellants, Rice Drilling D, LLC and Gulfport Energy Corporation, filed an application pursuant to App. R. 26(B) seeking reconsideration of our opinion and judgment entry in Tera, LLC v. Rice Drilling D, LLC, 7th Dist. Belmont No. 21 BE 0047, 2023-Ohio-273 (J. Robb dissenting).

{¶2} In the January 18, 2023 opinion and judgment entry, the majority of the panel affirmed the decision of the trial court entering summary judgment in favor of Appellee, Tera, LLC, on its bad faith trespass and conversion claims, based on the conclusion that the unambiguous language of the oil and gas leases at issue did not include drilling rights to the Point Pleasant. Judge Robb, on the other hand, concluded the opposite, that the unambiguous language of the leases includes drilling rights to the Point Pleasant. In addition to affirming the decision of the trial court on the merits, the majority affirmed the jury's verdict awarding damages to Tera, with the exception of damages awarded when Tera was not the owner of the subject properties, and remanded the matter for retrial on the single issue of compensatory damages.

{¶3} Reconsideration "provides a mechanism by which a party may prevent miscarriages of justice that could arise when an appellate court makes an obvious error or renders an unsupportable decision under the law." Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. Knox, 7th Dist. Belmont No. 09-BE-4, 2011-Ohio-421, ¶ 2. "When presented with an application for reconsideration * * *, an appellate court must determine whether the application calls to the court's attention an obvious error in its decision or raises an issue for consideration that was either not considered at all or was not fully considered by the court when it should have been." Norman v. Kellie Auto Sales, Inc., 2020-Ohio-6953, 165 N.E.3d 805, ¶ 7 (10th Dist.), aff'd, 167 Ohio St.3d 151, 2022-Ohio-1198, 189 N.E.3d 784. "A panel could conceivably make any number of obvious errors justifying reconsideration including a factual error, a procedural error, or an error of law." Id. at ¶ 11.

{¶4} The lion's share of the seventeen-pages of argument in Ap...