On November 4, 2013, the United States District Court for
the Western District of Pennsylvania adopted the report and recommendation of a
magistrate judge to deny a well operator’s motion for summary judgment. Mason v. Range Resources-Appalachia, LLC,
2013 WL 5890725 (W.D. Pa. Nov. 4, 2013). The plaintiff landowner owns land
that subject to a lease between previous owners and the Manufacturers Light and
Heat Company, which is currently sub-leased by Range Resources (defendant
well-operator). The lease provided for the use of the subsurface for the
storage of gas, and the right to produce. The landowner refused to modify the
lease in negotiations with the operator and encouraged other landowners to do
the same. Throughout this time, the landowner was employed with an oil field
services company employed by the well operator. The well operator allegedly
ordered the field service company to disallow the landowner from the well
operator’s sites, which resulted in a significant demotion to the landowner.
The landowner refused to accept the demotion and was terminated. As a result,
the landowner brought suit against the well operator for tortious interference
with contractual relations. The court denied the well operator’s motion for
summary judgment because demonstration of the intent of the well operator is
determined by a trier of fact and not as a matter of law. The court explained
that the intent of the operator was a genuine issue of material fact because
the operator did not submit any evidence of its actual motive in directing the
actions of the field services company. As the movant, the operator failed to
demonstrate the non-existence of a genuine issue of material fact because it
did not provide any justification for directing the operator’s actions.
Written by: Garrett Lent, Research Assistant
Agricultural Law Resource and Reference Center
November 11, 2013
black magic specialist It is more interesting one. I like this post. The article is containing the more ideas and interesting content.
ReplyDelete