Federal court adopts report and recommendation to dismiss PGC’s action to quiet title.

On July 18, 2013, the District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania adopted the report and recommendation of a magistrate judge to grant a private trust’s motion to dismiss an action to quiet title brought by the Pennsylvania Game Commission. Pennsylvania Game Commission v. Proctor Heirs Trust, 2013 WL 3785253 (M.D. Pa July 18, 2013).

In 1895, Thomas Proctor recorded a deed in Sullivan County reserving the mineral, oil and gas rights of the property to himself and his heirs. In June 1908, the property was sold by Sullivan County Treasurer to a private purchaser at a tax auction, where the oil, gas and mineral estates were not separately assessed. In 1910, the purchaser recorded a deed with the Central Pennsylvania Lumber Company. Fifteen years later, in 1925, CPLC and PGC recorded a deed through which PGC obtained an interest in the mineral rights. PGC claims that in 1980 the Proctor Heir’s conveyed their interests to the Trust. PGC brought its action to quiet title in 2012.

The magistrate judge recommended the action to quiet title be dismissed because PGC failed to establish it was in possession or exercising dominion over the mineral estate. The magistrate judge explained that possession is a jurisdictional prerequisite for an action to quiet title. Further, PGC failed to demonstrate in its complaint the specific claim under Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1061(b), and did not provide well-pleaded facts in its complaint to allege it was in possession of the mineral estate. Pennsylvania courts generally find possession when mineral are “in grasp” (the portion of the land has been tapped by the party). PGC, however, only referred to its right of possession through the deed with CPLC. Therefore, PGC did not state a claim for which relief could be granted, and the magistrate judge recommended the Proctor Trust’s motion to dismiss be granted.

For more information on legal developments in the Marcellus shale play, visit the Marcellus Shale Resource Area.

Written by: Garrett Lent, Research Assistant

Agricultural Law Resource and Reference Center

July 2013

Burke v. GAPCO Energy

On September 27, the District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania granted defendant Sylvan and defendant EQT’s motions in limine to preclude plaintiff’s arguments about contract interpretation and parol evidence. The Court concluded that the meaning of the oil and gas lease at issue has been interpreted as a matter of law in the prior order, and under the parol evidence rule, plaintiff cannot present evidence of preliminary negotiations made before the written lease to establish its meaning.

Written by Anna Leonenko, Research Fellow
Penn State Law, Agricultural Law Center

October 10, 2012

Click here to read the full opinion in Burke v. GAPCO Energy, LLC

Court dismisses NEPA claims against DRBC

On September 24th, the District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted DRBC and Federal Defendants’ motion to dismiss three consolidated complaints for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Three suits were brought by the State of New York and various environmental groups claiming that a NEPA analysis is required with DRBC’s draft regulations that would allow natural gas development in the Delaware River Basin. Defendants moved to dismiss all three complaints arguing that Defendants are protected by sovereign immunity, that Plaintiffs lack standing, that Plaintiffs’ claims are not ripe for review, that NEPA does not apply, that there is no final action under APA, that DRBC is not a federal agency, and that NEPA can only be enforced under the APA. The Court concluded that the complaints should be dismissed for lack of standing and in the alternative for lack of ripeness because DRBC has not yet issued final regulations permitting natural gas development. The Court did not rule on the merits of all the questions presented by both parties and denied all other motions as moot.

Written by Anna Leonenko, Research Fellow
Penn State Law, Agricultural Law Center

October 1, 2012

Click here for the State of New York v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers opinion