Joseph Ennis, Sr. v. Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:12-cv-00105-JPB Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999206653].. [13-1311]

Appeal: 13-1311

Doc: 24

Filed: 10/02/2013

Pg: 1 of 5

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-1311

JOSEPH E. ENNIS, SR.; MARJORIE G. ENNIS,
Plaintiffs – Appellants,
v.
CHESAPEAKE APPALACHIA, LLC, an Oklahoma limited liability
company; STATOIL USA ONSHORE PROPERTIES, INC., a Delaware
corporation; RANGE RESOURCES-APPALACHIA, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company,
Defendants – Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Wheeling.
John Preston Bailey,
Chief District Judge. (5:12-cv-00105-JPB)

Submitted:

August 20, 2013

Decided:

October 2, 2013

Before KING, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael C. Harris, HARRIS WELSH & LUKMANN, Chesterton, Indiana;
Eric M. Gordon, BERRY, KESSLER, CRUTCHFIELD, TAYLOR & GORDON,
Moundsville, West Virginia, for Appellants.
Kevin C. Abbott,
REED SMITH LLP, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-1311

Doc: 24

Filed: 10/02/2013

Pg: 2 of 5

PER CURIAM:
In this diversity action, plaintiffs Joseph E. Ennis, Sr.,
and Marjorie G. Ennis, owners of an eighty-eight-acre parcel in
Ohio County, West Virginia, seek a declaration that (1) they did
not

enter

into

a

binding

“oil,

gas

and

coalbed

methane

gas

lease” with defendant Range Resources-Appalachia, LLC (nee Great
Lakes Energy Partners, LLC), and (2) Range thus did not validly
assign any lease to defendants Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC, and
Statoil USA Onshore Properties, Inc.

The Ennises also allege

that they are entitled to compensatory and punitive damages for
the

loss

of

income

and

diminished

property

value

that

have

resulted from the defendants’ illegal claim on the Ennises’ oil
and gas.
Concluding that a fully enforceable lease exists between
the Ennises and Range, the district court granted a motion, made
by

Range

solely

on

its

own

behalf,

to

dismiss

the

Ennises’

complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
See Ennis v. Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC, No. 5:12-cv-00105 (N.D.
W. Va. Feb. 8, 2013) (the “Dismissal Order”).

That same day,

the court issued an order for the Ennises to show cause why the
complaint should not be dismissed as to Chesapeake and Statoil,
in that the Ennises’ claims against those two defendants seem to
hinge on the lack of a binding lease with Range.

In response,

rather than contending that their claims against Chesapeake and
2

Appeal: 13-1311

Doc: 24

Filed: 10/02/2013

Statoil

are

Ennises

filed

Dismissal

independent
a

Rule

Order

on

of

their

59(e)
the

Pg: 3 of 5

claims

motion

ground

pronouncing a binding lease.

to

that

against
alter

the

Range,

the

amend

the

or

court

erred

in

Adhering to its earlier ruling,

the court denied the Ennises’ Rule 59(e) motion and dismissed
the

complaint

in

its

entirety.

See

Ennis

v.

Chesapeake

Appalachia, LLC, No. 5:12-cv-00105 (N.D. W. Va. Mar. 1, 2013)
(the “Rule 59(e) Order”).

The Ennises timely noted this appeal

from the final judgment, contesting both the Dismissal Order and
the Rule 59(e) Order.
The Ennises maintain that they made an offer to enter into
a lease when, on August 1, 2006, they signed and tendered a
lease form that had been provided to them by Range that June;
the form contained a commencement date of “this __ day of June,
2006.”

On

August

28,

2006,

the

form

bearing

the

Ennises’

signatures — now altered by Range to reflect a commencement date
of August 1, 2006 — was executed on Range’s behalf.

Range

promptly recorded a memorandum of lease commencing on August 1,
2006,

and

conveyed

its

interest

in

the

lease

to

Chesapeake

(73.12%) and Statoil (26.88%) effective July 1, 2010.

According

to

they

the

Ennises,

they

believed

for

four

years

that

had

entered into a binding lease with Range that had commenced on an
unspecified day in June 2006, but were disabused of that belief
sometime in 2010 when they discovered Range’s alteration of the
3

Appeal: 13-1311

Doc: 24

Filed: 10/02/2013

Pg: 4 of 5

commencement date to August 1, 2006.

The Ennises now insist

that such alteration constituted a counter-offer by Range that
the Ennises never accepted, so that there was no “meeting of the
minds” necessary for the formation of a valid contract.
In

pertinent

part,

the

district

court

agreed

with

the

Ennises that “[t]he start date on the oil and gas lease is,
indeed, an essential term as it in turn affects the termination
date

of

the

[five-year]

lease.”

Dismissal

Order

5.

Nevertheless, the court expressed no “difficulty in supplying
that date in an effort to remove any uncertainty as to the
rights

and

responsibilities

Restatement

(Second)

of

of

the

Contracts

parties.”

§ 204

(1981)

Id.;

see

(“When

the

parties to a bargain sufficiently defined to be a contract have
not

agreed

with

determination

respect

of

their

to

a

term
and

rights

which

is

duties,

a

essential
term

to

which

a
is

reasonable in the circumstances is supplied by the court.”).
The court declined “to enforce a date of ‘this __ day of June,
2006,’” because to do so would not “serve any party’s interest
in

establishing

a

Dismissal Order 5.

clear

start

or

end

date

to

the

lease.”

Rather, the court deemed August 1, 2006 —

the day the lease was signed by the Ennises, as well as the date
designated by Range — to be the proper lease commencement date.
See id. at 8 (noting that, “had the contract remained in its
original form with the language ‘this __ day of June, 2006,’ the
4

Appeal: 13-1311

Doc: 24

Filed: 10/02/2013

Pg: 5 of 5

Court would have nevertheless supplied the August 1, 2006, date
as the most reasonable term”).
In
deeming

supplying
the

a

lease

reasonable
wholly

commencement

unenforceable,

date

the

rather

district

than
court

observed that the choice of August 1, 2006, was harmless to the
Ennises.

That is, approximately one year remained on the five-

year lease when development of the Ennises’ oil and gas was
attempted, “regardless of whether the June, 2006, or August 1,
2006, dates were used.”

See Dismissal Order 7-8 (distinguishing

Southern v. S. Penn Oil Co., 81 S.E. 981 (W. Va. 1914), where
defendant endeavored to use fraudulently altered lease to drill
on plaintiff’s land after expiration of unaltered version of
lease).
the

Because we agree with the foregoing analysis, we affirm

judgment

of

the

district

court.

We

dispense

with

oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before the Court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

5