Trans Energy, Inc. et al v. EQT Corporation
Filing
42
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting plaintiffs' 27 Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint. The Clerk is DIRECTED to file the amended complaint, which is attached as Exhibit A to themotion 27 . Signed by Senior Judge Frederick P. Stamp, Jr on 6/21/12. (jss)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
TRANS ENERGY, INC.,
a Nevada corporation,
REPUBLIC PARTNERS VI, LP,
a Texas limited partnership,
REPUBLIC ENERGY VENTURES, LLC,
a Delaware limited liability company
and PRIMA OIL COMPANY, INC.,
a Delaware corporation,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Civil Action No. 1:11CV75
(STAMP)
EQT PRODUCTION COMPANY,
a Pennsylvania corporation,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT
I.
Background
In 1892, John Blackshere and South Penn Oil Company entered
into an oil and gas lease covering the 3,800 acre property known as
“Blackshere.”
Blackshere is substantially located in both Wetzel
County, West Virginia and Doddridge County, West Virginia.
In
1963, South Penn Oil Company changed its name to Pennzoil Company.
Pennzoil Products Company (“Pennzoil”), a successor-in-interest to
Pennzoil
Company,
and
Cobham
Gas
Industries,
Inc.
(“Cobham”)
recorded a memorandum of assignment and bill of sale in 1996.
The
complaint alleges that this document conveyed all of Pennzoil’s
right, title, and interest in the oil and gas underlying the
Blackshere property to Cobham.
The complaint further alleges that
in 2004, Cobham conveyed all right, title and interest in the oil
and gas underlying the Blackshere property (“Blackshere lease”) to
Prima Oil Company, Inc. (“Prima”).
Finally, the complaint avers
that Trans Energy, Inc. (“Trans Energy”)1 and Prima assigned a
portion of the Blackshere lease to Republic Partners VI, LP
(“Republic Partners”).
Republic Energy Ventures, LLC (“Republic
Energy”) allegedly possesses an overriding royalty interest in the
Blackshere lease.
On or around December 3, 2010, Trans Energy applied to the
West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection for a permit
to
drill
a
Blackshere.
new
Marcellus
shale
gas
well
to
be
located
on
Around January 25, 2011, Trans Energy was granted the
permit2 for a new Marcellus shale gas well.
The complaint alleges
that after receipt of the permit, Prima and Republic Partners
engaged counsel to perform a title examination.
Plaintiffs claim that their retained counsel found an unbroken
chain of title from South Penn Oil Company to Prima, such that
Prima acquired all of South Penn Oil’s right to title and interest
under the Blackshere lease.
Plaintiffs’ counsel then allegedly
conducted an adverse search of Hope Natural Gas Company (“Hope
1
Plaintiffs claim that Prima Oil Company, Inc. is a whollyowned subsidiary of Trans Energy, Inc.
2
Gas well permit identified as API-47-103-02615H.
2
Natural Gas”)3 to determine if Hope Natural Gas had any claim to
the Blackshere lease, despite the fact that counsel did not uncover
a record indicating that South Penn conveyed any interest prior to
the Cobham assignment or that Hope Natural Gas acquired an interest
from South Penn or its successors-in-interest.
Plaintiffs’ counsel was also allegedly aware of the existence
of
an
unrecorded
letter
in
1922,
purportedly
clarifying
and
modifying the terms and provisions of an unrecorded 1902 working
agreement between South Penn and Hope Natural Gas.
Plaintiffs
believe that South Penn and Hope Natural Gas may have operated
under the unrecorded working agreement, which they believe defined
the rights of both companies as to the oil and gas leases in
approximately
fifteen
unspecified
counties
in
West
Virginia.
Plaintiffs aver that it is unknown whether Wetzel County is one of
the unspecified counties.
Finally, the plaintiffs allege that
their counsel discovered the existence of a separate chain of title
to the Blackshere lease deriving from Hope Natural Gas.
The
defendant, EQT Production Company (“EQT”), is a successor-ininterest to Hope Natural Gas and therefore claims to derive any
title to Blackshere from the Hope Natural Gas chain of title.
The plaintiffs, Trans Energy, Republic Partners, Republic
Energy Ventures, LLC and Prima filed a complaint in this Court
3
Hope Natural Gas Company and South Penn Oil Company were
wholly-owned subsidiaries of the same parent company.
3
requesting an action to quiet title, declaratory relief, equitable
relief, and alleging adverse possession, all with regards to
Blackshere.
In its answer, the defendant filed counterclaims
against the plaintiffs requesting declaratory relief and alleging
trespass, conversion, and waste.
The plaintiffs then filed a
motion for leave to file an amended complaint, seeking to add three
counts to the complaint -- trespass, conversion, and waste.
The
defendant responded to the plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file an
amended complaint without objection.
II.
Applicable Law
Motions to amend are granted to the discretion of the trial
court and Rule 15(a) affords the district court broad discretion
concerning motions for leave to amend pleadings.
Keller v. Prince
George’s Cnty., 923 F.2d 30, 33 (4th Cir. 1991); Fed. R. Civ. P.
15(a).
Rule 15(a)(1) states, in pertinent part, that “[“[a] party
may amend its pleading once as a matter of course within . . . 21
days after serving it, or . . . 21 days after service of . . . a
motion under Rule 12(b).”
If a party seeks to amend its pleadings
in all other cases, it may only do so “with the opposing party’s
written consent or the court’s leave.
give leave when justice so requires.”
The court should freely
Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2).
Further, leave to amend should be granted absent some reason
“such as undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of
the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments
4
previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue
of allowance of the amendment, [or] futility of the amendment.”
Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962); see also Ward Elec. Serv.
v. First Commercial Bank, 819 F.2d 496, 497 (4th Cir. 1987);
Gladhill v. Gen. Motors Corp., 743 F.2d 1049, 1052 (4th Cir. 1984).
Finally, “any party filing a motion to amend a pleading that
requires leave of court to file, shall attach to that motion a
signed copy of the proposed amended pleading.”
III.
LR Civ P 15.01.
Discussion
Pursuant to the scheduling order issued by this Court on
September 12, 2011, all motions to amend the pleadings must have
been filed before May 9, 2012.
Plaintiffs timely submitted their
motion for leave to file an amended complaint on May 8, 2012.
support
of
their
plaintiffs
claim
prejudiced
by
motion
to
file
that,
although
permitting
the
an
amended
complaint,
the
defendant
plaintiffs
to
would
file
an
not
In
the
be
amended
complaint, the plaintiffs would be severely prejudiced if their
motion is denied.
EQT does not oppose the plaintiffs’ motion to
file amended complaint but reserves the right to seek dismissal of
the additional counts set forth in the amended complaint.
Plaintiffs properly followed Local Rule of Civil Procedure
15.01 and attached to their motion to file an amended complaint a
signed copy of the amended complaint.
5
Further, because the motion
was timely and the defendant does not object, this Court approves
the motion to amend.
IV.
Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, the plaintiffs’ motion for leave
to file an amended complaint is GRANTED.
The Clerk is DIRECTED to
file the amended complaint, which is attached as Exhibit A to the
motion (ECF No. 27).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
The Clerk is DIRECTED to transmit a copy of this memorandum
opinion and order to counsel of record herein.
DATED:
June 21, 2012
/s/ Frederick P. Stamp, Jr.
FREDERICK P. STAMP, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
6
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?