Mountaineer Minerals, LLC v. Antero Resources Corporation

Filing 108

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING MOUNTAINEER MINERALS, LLC'S MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR A NEW TRIAL [DKT. NO. 101 .] Signed by Senior Judge Irene M. Keeley on 9/4/2020. (wrr)

Case 1:16-cv-00028-IMK-MJA Document 108 Filed 09/04/20 Page 1 of 13 PageID #: 1758

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
MOUNTAINEER MINERALS, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:16CV28
(Judge Keeley)

ANTERO RESOURCES CORPORATION,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING
MOUNTAINEER MINERALS, LLC’S MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND
JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR A NEW TRIAL [DKT. NO. 101]
The Plaintiff, Mountaineer Minerals, LLC (“Mountaineer”),
filed a timely motion seeking reconsideration of and relief from
the Court’s Memorandum Opinion and Order granting Defendant Antero
Resources Corporation’s (“Antero”) supplemental motion for summary
judgment and denying Mountaineer’s supplemental motion for summary
judgment (“Opinion and Order”). In the alternative, Mountaineer
seeks a new trial. For the reasons that follow, the Court DENIES
the relief sought by Mountaineer.
I. BACKGROUND1
This matter concerns the rightful ownership of oil and gas
leasehold rights, specifically, the rights to extract oil and gas
from depths beginning just above the Marcellus Shale Formation (the
“Marcellus Rights”) beneath a specific parcel of land (Dkt. No. 82
at 3). Mountaineer and Antero both claim ownership of the Marcellus

1

This background is limited to those facts relevant to the
pending motion. A full recitation of the factual background of
this case can be found in the Court’s Memorandum Opinion and
Order (Dkt. No. 99).

Case 1:16-cv-00028-IMK-MJA Document 108 Filed 09/04/20 Page 2 of 13 PageID #: 1759

MOUNTAINEER MINERALS, LLC v. ANTERO RESOURCES CO.

1:16CV28

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING
MOUNTAINEER MINERALS, LLC’S MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND
JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR A NEW TRIAL [DKT. NO. 101]
Rights. Id. At issue is whether both the shallow and the deep
rights (including the Marcellus Rights) were assigned on August 30,
1996, in a document entitled “General Assignment and Bill of Sale”
(hereinafter, the “Subject Assignment”) (Dkt. No. 99 at 3). The
parties also dispute whether the leasehold rights conveyed in the
Subject Assignment pertained only to two wells described in the
Subject Assignment (API well numbers 47-85-03583 and 47-85-02520)
(the “Assigned Wells”), or if these rights extended to the entire
parcel (Dkt. No. 90-1 at 1, Dkt. No. 82 at 6).
Mountaineer sued Antero in 2016 for declaratory relief and to
quiet title (Dkt. No. 1-2). Following the conclusion of discovery,
on August 10, 2017, the Court granted Mountaineer’s motion for
summary judgment and denied Antero’s motion for summary judgment
(Dkt. No. 76). On appeal, the Fourth Circuit vacated the judgment
and remanded the matter to determine which rights in the Subject
Assignment had been assigned on August 30, 1996 (Dkt. No. 82).
Following remand, on November 5, 2019, the Court granted
Antero’s

supplemental

motion

for

summary

judgment

and

denied

Mountaineer’s supplemental motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No.
99). The Court concluded that Mountaineer could not prevail on its
claims against Antero because (1) the Subject Assignment only
pertained to the Assigned Wells and the narrow, related leasehold

2

Case 1:16-cv-00028-IMK-MJA Document 108 Filed 09/04/20 Page 3 of 13 PageID #: 1760

MOUNTAINEER MINERALS, LLC v. ANTERO RESOURCES CO.

1:16CV28

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING
MOUNTAINEER MINERALS, LLC’S MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND
JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR A NEW TRIAL [DKT. NO. 101]
interests in the Assigned Wells; and (2) the Assigned Wells,
particularly API Number 47-85-03583, did not reach the Marcellus
Shale Formation. Id. at 9-10.
Mountaineer seeks reconsideration of this decision or a new
trial

based

on

newly

discovered

evidence

contained

in

two

affidavits, procured after the Court entered judgment in Antero’s
favor, from P.D. Farr (“Farr”) and Terry Lynn Snider (“Snider”),
who executed the Subject Assignment on August 30, 1996 (Dkt. No.
102). These affidavits purport to clarify the parties’ intent
regarding the Subject Assignment. Id. Mountaineer also requests, in
addition to considering the affidavits, that the Court reopen the
record to consider the affiants’ use of four wells on the parcel
that were not explicitly conveyed in the Subject Assignment. Id.
The motion is fully briefed and ripe for review.
II. LEGAL STANDARDS
A.

Rules 59(a),(b)
“A motion for a new trial must be filed no later than 28 days

after entry of judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(b). Rule 59(a)(2) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure grants courts the discretion,
“[a]fter a nonjury trial . . . to open the judgment if one has been
entered, take additional testimony, amend findings of fact and
conclusions of law or make new ones, and direct the entry of a new

3

Case 1:16-cv-00028-IMK-MJA Document 108 Filed 09/04/20 Page 4 of 13 PageID #: 1761

MOUNTAINEER MINERALS, LLC v. ANTERO RESOURCES CO.

1:16CV28

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING
MOUNTAINEER MINERALS, LLC’S MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND
JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR A NEW TRIAL [DKT. NO. 101]
judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(a)(2) (emphasis added).
B.

Rule 59(e)
Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits an

aggrieved party to file a motion to alter or amend a judgment
within twenty-eight days. Courts have recognized three grounds for
amending an earlier judgment, including: (1) to accommodate an
intervening change in controlling law; (2) to account for new
evidence not available at trial; or (3) to correct a clear error of
law or prevent manifest injustice. Pacific Ins. Co. v. American
Nat. Fire Ins. Co., 148 F.3d 396, 403 (4th Cir. 1998); Hutchinson
v. Staton, 994 F.2d 1076, 1081 (4th Cir. 1993). A motion for
reconsideration cannot, as a matter of law, be based on evidence
that was available to the movant prior to an entry of judgment.
Boryan v. U.S., 884 F.2d 767, 771 (4th Cir. 1989). Finally, a
motion to reconsider is inappropriate where the moving party simply
seeks to have the Court rethink what “the Court ha[s] already
thought through – rightly or wrongly.” Above the Belt, Inc. v. Mel
Bohannon Roofing, Inc., 99 F.R.D. 99, 101 (E.D. Va. 1983).
C.

Rule 60(b)
Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides

that a court may relieve a party from a final judgment for:
(1) mistake,
neglect; (2)

inadvertence, surprise, or excusable
newly discovered evidence that, with
4

Case 1:16-cv-00028-IMK-MJA Document 108 Filed 09/04/20 Page 5 of 13 PageID #: 1762

MOUNTAINEER MINERALS, LLC v. ANTERO RESOURCES CO.

1:16CV28

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING
MOUNTAINEER MINERALS, LLC’S MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND
JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR A NEW TRIAL [DKT. NO. 101]
reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in
time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud
(whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic),
misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party;
(4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been
satisfied, released, or discharged; it is based on an
earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or
applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; or (6)
any other reason that justifies relief.
“‘[A] motion to reconsider is not a license to reargue the
merits or present new evidence’ that was previously available to
the movant.” Krell v. Queen Anne’s County, 2019 WL 6131076 at *1
(D. Md. Nov. 19, 2019) (quoting Royal Ins. Co. of Am. v. Miles &
Stockbridge, P.C., 142 F. Supp. 2d 676, 677 n. 1 (D. Md. 2001)
(additional citation omitted)).
III. ANALYSIS
A.

Mountaineer is not Entitled to Relief from Judgment.
Mountaineer

contends

that

the

Court

clearly

erred

in

misconstruing the Subject Assignment and should amend its judgment
to account for new evidence or to correct a clear error of law and
prevent manifest injustice (Dkt. No. 102 at 4, 11). Relying on the
Farr and Snider affidavits, Mountaineer argues that it has provided
overwhelming evidence that the Subject Assignment granted all
leasehold rights to the entire parcel. Id. at 17.
In response, Antero argues that Mountaineer is not entitled to
relief because it has simply repeated arguments that the Court and

5

Case 1:16-cv-00028-IMK-MJA Document 108 Filed 09/04/20 Page 6 of 13 PageID #: 1763

MOUNTAINEER MINERALS, LLC v. ANTERO RESOURCES CO.

1:16CV28

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING
MOUNTAINEER MINERALS, LLC’S MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND
JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR A NEW TRIAL [DKT. NO. 101]
the Fourth Circuit previously rejected (Dkt. No. 105 at 6). Antero
also asserts that the affidavits Mountaineer submitted do not
constitute

newly

discovered

evidence

under

Rule

59

because

Mountaineer could have obtained these affidavits prior to the
hearing on the parties’ supplemental motions for summary judgment.
Id.
In

its

reply,

Mountaineer

asserts

that

the

Court

inappropriately determined the well bore designated as API 47-8503583 did not reach the Marcellus Rights because the Court relied
on a limitation that was not included in the Subject Assignment
(Dkt. No. 106 at 1). It further contends that it diligently
obtained the Farr and Snider affidavits. Id. at 14. Finally, it
urges the Court to reconsider its Opinion and Order in order to
prevent “manifest injustice.” Id. at 2.
1.

Newly Discovered Evidence.

The

Court

considers

first

whether

the

Farr

and

Snider

affidavits are newly discovered evidence. The Fourth Circuit has
addressed the standard imposed when evaluating a Rule 59 motion on
the ground of newly discovered evidence:
The standard for granting a Rule 59 motion based on newly
discovered evidence is high. The moving party must show:
(1) the evidence is newly discovered since the judgment
was entered; (2) due diligence on the part of the movant
to discover the new evidence has been exercised; (3) the
evidence is not merely cumulative or impeaching; (4) the
6

Case 1:16-cv-00028-IMK-MJA Document 108 Filed 09/04/20 Page 7 of 13 PageID #: 1764

MOUNTAINEER MINERALS, LLC v. ANTERO RESOURCES CO.

1:16CV28

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING
MOUNTAINEER MINERALS, LLC’S MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND
JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR A NEW TRIAL [DKT. NO. 101]
evidence is material; and (5) the evidence is such that
it is likely to produce a new outcome if the case were
retried, or is such that would require the judgment to be
amended.
Boryan, 884 F.2d 767, 771 (4th Cir. 1989) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P.
60).2
To support a motion for reconsideration, the movant is
obliged to show not only that this evidence was newly
discovered or unknown to it until after the hearing, but
also that it could not with reasonable diligence have
discovered and produced such evidence at the hearing. .
. . Evidence that is available to a party prior to entry
of judgment, therefore, is not a basis for granting a
motion for reconsideration as a matter of law.
Id., 884 F.2d at 771 (quotations and citations omitted).
It is undisputed that the Farr and Snider affidavits were
executed after

entry

of

the

Court’s November

5,

2019

Order.

Additionally, the content of these affidavits is not “merely
cumulative or impeaching.” The affidavits, however, do not meet the
remaining factors Mountaineer is obligated to show in order to
obtain relief based on newly discovered evidence.
Mountaineer cannot establish that it exercised due diligence
in

discovering

justification

this

as

to

new

evidence.

why

these

It

provided

witnesses,

2

who

no
were

persuasive
listed

on

In the Fourth Circuit, the standard governing relief on
the basis of newly discovered evidence is the same whether the
motion is brought under rule 59 or rule 60. United States
Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Lawrenson, 334 F.2d 464, 475 n.2 (4th
Cir. 1964).
7

Case 1:16-cv-00028-IMK-MJA Document 108 Filed 09/04/20 Page 8 of 13 PageID #: 1765

MOUNTAINEER MINERALS, LLC v. ANTERO RESOURCES CO.

1:16CV28

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING
MOUNTAINEER MINERALS, LLC’S MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND
JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR A NEW TRIAL [DKT. NO. 101]
Antero’s initial disclosures, were not contacted or deposed long
before the parties submitted their first round of summary judgment
briefs. Indeed, Mountaineer was able to locate these witnesses and
obtain affidavits within twenty-eight days following entry of the
Court’s Opinion and Order. “Evidence that is available to a party
prior to entry of judgment, therefore, is not a basis for granting
a motion for reconsideration as a matter of law.” Quillin v. C.B.
Fleet Holding Co., 328 F. App’x 195, 203 (4th Cir. 2009) (quoting
Boryan, 884 F.2d at 771).
Furthermore, even if considered, these affidavits are neither
material

nor

the

basis

for

a

new

outcome

because

the

Court

construed the Subject Assignment in accordance with its plain and
unambiguous terms. Therefore, the affidavits do not justify relief
from judgment based on newly discovered evidence.
2.

To Correct a Clear Error of Law or To Prevent Manifest
Injustice.

A Rule 59(e) motion “is not intended to allow for reargument
of the very issues that the court has previously decided.” DeLong
v. Thompson, 790 F. Supp. 594, 618 (E.D. Va. 1991), aff’d, 985 F.2d
553 (4th Cir. 1993) (unpublished). A court may not alter the clear
meaning and intent of the parties as expressed in unambiguous
language in their written contract. Syl. Pt. 7, Faith United
Methodist Church v. Morgan, 231 W. Va. 423, 745 S.E.2d 461 (2013);
8

Case 1:16-cv-00028-IMK-MJA Document 108 Filed 09/04/20 Page 9 of 13 PageID #: 1766

MOUNTAINEER MINERALS, LLC v. ANTERO RESOURCES CO.

1:16CV28

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING
MOUNTAINEER MINERALS, LLC’S MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND
JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR A NEW TRIAL [DKT. NO. 101]
Syl. Pt. 3, Cotiga Development Company v. United Fuel Gas Company,
147 W. Va. 484, 128 S.E.2d 626 (1962). A contract is not considered
ambiguous

simply

because

the

parties

do

not

agree

on

its

construction. Syl. Pt. 2, CONSOL Energy, Inc. v. Hummel, 792 S.E.2d
613 (2016) (citations omitted). “[W]hether a contract is ambiguous
is a question of law to be determined by the court.” Id.
As Mountaineer urges in so many words, West Virginia courts
once did consider “the situation of the parties, the subject matter
of the deed, the purpose sought to be accomplished thereby, and the
acts of the parties thereunder” to resolve ambiguities in oil and
gas leases. Syl., Ramage v. South Penn Oil Co., 94 W. Va. 81, 118
S.E. 162 (1923) (overruled by Faith United, 231 W. Va. 423, 745
S.E.2d 461). But this is no longer the rule. Indeed, as the Supreme
Court of Appeals of West Virginia recently held in Faith United,
231 W. Va. at 436-37, 745 S.E.2d at 474-75:3
[R]equiring a court to turn back the clock and go beyond
the document to discern the parties’ intent from parol
and other extrinsic evidence violates the fundamental
policy of confining the Court’s inquiry to the four
corners of the document. . . . “[T]here is often a great
lag time between the time of the grant and the time of
the controversy. As the time lapse increases, attempts to
determine the intent of the parties [at the time of the
conveyance] becomes more difficult. Even the parties
themselves could become confused as to the intent of a

3

Quoting Myles E. Flint, Meaning of Conveyances of the
“Surface” Only, 34 Rocky Mtn. L. Rev. 330, 335 (1961).
9

Case 1:16-cv-00028-IMK-MJA Document 108 Filed 09/04/20 Page 10 of 13 PageID #: 1767

MOUNTAINEER MINERALS, LLC v. ANTERO RESOURCES CO.

1:16CV28

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING
MOUNTAINEER MINERALS, LLC’S MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND
JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR A NEW TRIAL [DKT. NO. 101]
grant which had been made twenty-five or thirty years
earlier.”
Mountaineer asks the Court to reopen the and consider the new
affidavits, the conduct of the well operators, and the Subject
Assignment’s silence about the wells’ depth. But reopening the
record to allow evidence regarding the intent of two individuals
who executed the Subject Assignment more than twenty years ago
invites

a

look

beyond

the

unambiguous

terms

of

the

Subject

Assignment. Therefore, the Court will not look back under such
circumstances, and concludes that no legal error occurred, nor will
manifest injustice result if the Court’s findings stand.
3.

Relief from Judgment.

Mountaineer also seeks relief from final judgment under Rule
60(b) because of newly discovered evidence or “any other reason
that justifies relief” (Dkt. No. 102 at 5). “In all cases, a Rule
60(b) movant must act in a timely fashion, must demonstrate a lack
of prejudice to the non-movant, and must proffer a meritorious
defense.” Augusta Fiberglass Coatings, Inc. v. Fodor Contracting
Corp., 843 F.2d 808, 811 (4th Cir. 1988).
A motion for reconsideration of legal issues already addressed
in

an

earlier

ruling

is

not

authorized

by

Rule

60(b).

CNF

Constructors, Inc. v. Donohoe Constr. Co., 57 F.3d 395, 401 (4th
Cir. 1995). The “any other reason that justifies relief” factor
10

Case 1:16-cv-00028-IMK-MJA Document 108 Filed 09/04/20 Page 11 of 13 PageID #: 1768

MOUNTAINEER MINERALS, LLC v. ANTERO RESOURCES CO.

1:16CV28

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING
MOUNTAINEER MINERALS, LLC’S MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND
JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR A NEW TRIAL [DKT. NO. 101]
“requires

that

it

may

be

invoked

in

only

‘extraordinary

circumstances’ when the reason for relief from judgment does not
fall within the list of enumerated reasons given in Rule 60(b)(1)(5).”

Aikens

v.

Ingram,

652

F.3d

496,

500

(4th

Cir.

2011)

(citations omitted).
Other than having filed its motion soon after judgment,
Mountaineer cannot demonstrate any of the other required elements
for consideration under Rule 60(b). First, Rule 60(b) does not
authorize

relief

from

relieving

Mountaineer

a

court’s

from

conclusions

judgment

under

of

law.

Rule

60(b)

Second,
would

prejudice Antero, which obtained a favorable ruling from both the
Fourth Circuit and the Court. Moreover, lacking a

solid basis in

law

be

or

fact,

Mountaineer’s

argument

cannot

considered

meritorious. Finally, no “extraordinary circumstances” exist that
could

provide

a

basis

for

relief

because

the

predicament

Mountaineer finds itself in is based on the unambiguous language of
the Subject Assignment and Mountaineer’s failure to timely gather
evidence in support of its case.
B.

Mountaineer is Not Entitled to a New Trial.
Mountaineer argues in the alternative that the Court should

grant it a new trial under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(b) based on newly
discovered evidence (Dkt. No. 102 at 5-6). Mountaineer asserts it

11

Case 1:16-cv-00028-IMK-MJA Document 108 Filed 09/04/20 Page 12 of 13 PageID #: 1769

MOUNTAINEER MINERALS, LLC v. ANTERO RESOURCES CO.

1:16CV28

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING
MOUNTAINEER MINERALS, LLC’S MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND
JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR A NEW TRIAL [DKT. NO. 101]
was never afforded the opportunity to address “the rudiments” of
the Subject Assignment in either its argument to the Fourth Circuit
or through discovery. Id. at 19. It bases these assertions on the
Farr and Snider affidavits, positing that “additional discovery
would

unequivocally

leasehold

rights

lead

were

to

the

assigned

conclusion
to

Ritchie

that
in

all

of

the

the

Subject

Assignment.” Id.
In advancing this argument, Mountaineer overlooks the basic
legal principle that a motion for a new trial under Rule 59 is only
appropriate after a bench or jury trial. Gensler et al., 2 Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, Rules and Commentary Rule 59 (Feb. 2020
update). “If a judgment has been entered absent a trial—e.g.,
dismissal with prejudice or summary judgment—a party must bring a
motion to alter or amend the judgment under Rule 59(e).” Id.; see
also Merrill v. Cty. of Madera, 389 Fed. Appx. 613, 615 (9th Cir.
2010) (“[A] Rule 59[ ] motion for new trial is not available on
claims or causes of action for which Plaintiffs never received a
trial”); Bollschweiler v. El Paso Elec. Co., 2016 WL 6084166, *1
(W.D. Tex. 2016) (declining to apply Rule 59(a) and analyzing
motion for new trial following summary judgment under Rule 59(e));
Flynn v. Terrebonne Parish School Bd., 348 F. Supp. 2d 769, 770
(E.D. La. 2004) (finding that a motion for new trial was not an

12

Case 1:16-cv-00028-IMK-MJA Document 108 Filed 09/04/20 Page 13 of 13 PageID #: 1770

MOUNTAINEER MINERALS, LLC v. ANTERO RESOURCES CO.

1:16CV28

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING
MOUNTAINEER MINERALS, LLC’S MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND
JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR A NEW TRIAL [DKT. NO. 101]
appropriate vehicle to challenge the court’s grant of summary
judgment). Because the Court granted summary judgment in Antero’s
favor prior to trial, Rules 59(a) and 59(b) are inapplicable.
IV. CONCLUSION
The Court DENIES Mountaineer Minerals, LLC’s motion to alter
or amend judgment or, in the alternative, for a new trial (Dkt. No.
101), DISMISSES this civil action WITH PREJUDICE, and DIRECTS that
it be stricken from the Court’s active docket.
It is so ORDERED.
The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to enter a separate judgment order
and to transmit copies of both orders to counsel of record.
DATED: September 4, 2020
/s/ Irene M. Keeley
IRENE M. KEELEY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

13