Stern et al v. Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC et al

Filing 31

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' REQUEST TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT, DIRECTING THE CLERK TO FILE THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS: Pltffs' request to file 2nd amended complaint as set forth in [13-1]Memorandum is granted; and Denied as moot is 4 Motion to Dismiss. Clerk directed to file [13-1] as pltffs' Second Amended Complaint. Signed by Senior Judge Frederick P. Stamp, Jr on 12/2/15. (soa)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
GARY STERN and SUSAN STERN,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Civil Action No. 5:15CV98
(STAMP)

COLUMBIA GAS TRANSMISSION, LLC,
CHESAPEAKE APPALACHIA, LLC,
COLUMBIA ENERGY VENTURE, LLC and
SWN PRODUCTION COMPANY, LLC,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT,
DIRECTING THE CLERK TO FILE THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
AND DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
The plaintiffs (“the Sterns”) filed this civil action seeking
a declaration that two leases for the production and storage of
natural gas on their property are invalid, and alleging claims for
slander of title, trespass, conversion, breach of implied covenants
against drainage, and breach of covenants of good faith and fair
dealing.

Defendant Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC (“Chesapeake”),

filed a motion to dismiss all counts against it for failure to
state a claim.

In their response, the Sterns requested leave to

amend the complaint.

For the following reasons, this Court grants

the Sterns’ request for leave to amend the complaint and denies as
moot Chesapeake’s motion to dismiss.
I.

Background

The Sterns filed a six-count complaint in West Virginia state
court, and the defendants removed the case to this Court citing

diversity jurisdiction.
complaint.

The Sterns then filed their first amended

In Count I, the Sterns seek a declaration that two

leases for the production and storage of natural gas on their
property are invalid.

The Sterns entered into the leases in 1963

for a ten-year primary term, in which time the lessees were
required to begin production of natural gas on the property.

The

Sterns allege that the leases lapsed in 1973 because the lessees
failed to produce on the property during the ten-year primary term.
In Count II, the Sterns allege slander of title, specifically
alleging that the invalid leases were referenced in public filings
involving the assignment of rights under the leases, clouding title
to the property.

Counts III, IV, V, and VI name SWN Production

Company, LLC (“SWN”), and respectively allege trespass, conversion,
breach of implied covenants against drainage, and breach of implied
covenants of good faith and fair dealing.

The Sterns allege that

SWN operated a well on their neighbor’s property through which it
was producing gas from the Sterns’ property without contractual
authority to do so.

Chesapeake filed a motion to dismiss, under

Rule 12(b)(6), all counts as to it.
Chesapeake argues that the declaratory judgment action should
be dismissed against it because it no longer has an interest in the
leases, as it assigned all of its interests to SWN in 2014.

As to

the slander of title claim, Chesapeake argues that the claim should
be

dismissed

against

it

because

2

the

complaint

offers

only

conclusory allegations that Chesapeake acted with malice. Further,
Chesapeake argues that the remaining counts of the complaint should
be dismissed against it because it is not named in those counts.
In addition to substantive responses, the Sterns request leave
to file a second amended complaint and attached their proposed
second amended complaint to their memorandum.
complaint

alleges

more

specific

facts

The second amended

regarding

Chesapeake’s

alleged malice and names Chesapeake in Counts III, IV, V, and VI.
In particular, the Sterns allege that a Chesapeake representative
came to their home seeking modifications to the leases that would
allow Chesapeake to drill horizontal bore holes from adjacent
property to produce gas from the Sterns’ property. When the Sterns
refused, the Chesapeake representative allegedly threatened to
drill with or without their consent and stormed out of the house.
Then, Chesapeake began operating a well on adjacent property from
which it produced gas from the Sterns’ property, before assigning
its rights to SWN.
II.

Applicable Law

To survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), “a
complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true,
to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).

This plausibility

standard requires a plaintiff to articulate facts that, when
accepted as true, demonstrate that the plaintiff has stated a claim

3

that makes it plausible he is entitled to relief.

Francis v.

Giacomelli, 588 F.3d 186, 193 (4th Cir. 2009) (citing Iqbal, 556
U.S. at 678; Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)).
However, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), a
plaintiff may request leave to amend the complaint, and a “court
should freely give leave [to amend a complaint] when justice so
requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). A court has broad discretion
concerning motions to amend pleadings, but leave should be granted
unless “the amendment would be prejudicial to the opposing party,
there has been bad faith on the part of the moving party, or the
amendment would have been futile.”

Laber v. Harvey, 438 F.3d 404,

426-27 (4th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted).
III.

Discussion

Chesapeake argues that the Sterns’ request for leave to file
a second amended complaint should be denied because they failed to
file a motion for leave to amend the complaint as required by Local
Rule of Civil Procedure 15.01.

The Sterns did not file a motion

for leave to amend the complaint.

Rather, they attached a copy of

their proposed second amended complaint to their memorandum in
response to Chesapeake’s motion to dismiss.
Local Rule of Civil Procedure 15.01 provides that a party
seeking to amend a pleading under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
15(a)(2) must file a motion for leave to amend the pleading and
“attach to that motion a signed copy of the proposed amended

4

pleading.

The amended pleading shall not be filed until the Court

grants the particular motion.”

L.R. Civ. P. 15.01.

However, the

Local Rules must be “applied, construed, and enforced to avoid
inconsistency with” the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and
“shall also be construed and applied to provide fairness.”
Rules, Preface.

Local

Further, “[a] district judge may, in the interest

of orderly, expeditious, and efficient administration of justice,
allow

departures

from

these

Local

particular facts and circumstances.”

Rules

when

warranted

by

Id.

This Court finds that strict adherence to Local Rule of Civil
Procedure 15.01 in this case will not best serve the purposes of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the interest of justice.
As Rule 15(a)(2) provides, this Court should freely give leave to
amend a pleading, and there is no indication that the Sterns have
acted in bad faith or that the amendment would be futile.

Nor will

the defendants be unfairly prejudiced by the filing of the second
amended complaint, as they will have the opportunity to file
responsive pleadings to the second amended complaint. Fed. R. Civ.
P. 15(a)(3).
leave

to

Therefore, this Court grants the Sterns’ request for

amend

their

complaint

by

filing

a

second

amended

complaint.
Additionally,

because

the

Sterns’

amended

complaint

is

superceded by their second amended complaint, Chesapeake’s motion
to dismiss the amended complaint is denied as moot.

5

IV.

Conclusion

The plaintiffs’ request for leave to file a second amended
complaint is GRANTED.

Accordingly, the Clerk is DIRECTED to file

ECF No. 13-1 as the plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint.
In addition, Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC’s motion to dismiss
the plaintiffs’ first amended complaint is DENIED AS MOOT.

The

defendants may file responses to the second amended complaint
within fourteen days of the entry of this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
The Clerk is DIRECTED to transmit a copy of this order to
counsel of record herein.
DATED:

December 2, 2015

/s/ Frederick P. Stamp, Jr.
FREDERICK P. STAMP, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

6