Decision in case where landowners claimed because the driller did not pay annual rent payments (for non-drilling) in a timely manner, it released them from the lease. The PA Superior Court disagreed and found for the drillers.
The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Evenson in a landlord-tenant dispute with the Chegwiddens. The Chegwiddens appealed, arguing that their complaints about smoke and noise to Evenson provided implied notice to terminate their month-to-month lease. However, the district court found the Chegwiddens did not provide written notice of lease termination as required. Because the lease automatically renewed for February, Evenson was entitled to apply the security deposit to unpaid rent for that month. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's rulings, finding no genuine issues of material fact.
FLSA Litigation - Federal Court - MDFL Tampa - Fee Entitlement & MootnessPollard PLLC
Lawyers in FLSA cases and particularly on the defense side should view this as a cautionary tale: Tendering a check for the wages at issue does not moot the plaintiff's claim. FLSA claims are live until there is a judgment or a settlement approved by the court. And plaintiffs DO get their fees for litigating over the issue of attorneys' fees.
Simply put: A legitimate FLSA case, a skilled attorney on the plaintiff side, and defense counsel who do not understand the applicable legal framework make for disastrous results.
This document is a declaration by Richard Miyamoto in support of a judgment creditor's opposition to a debtor's motion to avoid a judicial lien. It summarizes a long legal dispute between the parties involving multiple bankruptcy filings by the debtor designed to hinder and delay collection of the judgment. It details the procedural history of the case, including previous court rulings against the debtor for failure to comply with discovery orders. Exhibits are attached documenting the lien and various court orders in the case.
This document is the defendants' closing argument in response to the plaintiffs' closing argument regarding trust documents presented in a real estate dispute. It argues that the plaintiffs' claims of fraudulent conduct by the defendant are unsupported and illogical. It asserts that the trust documents in question have no relevance to the legal issues being tried, which involve the interpretation of purchase and sale agreements for two properties. The defendant argues that the plaintiffs have presented no valid legal basis to rescind the agreements and that the evidence shows the plaintiffs were unable to complete the purchase for financial reasons.
This appeal involves post-judgment orders from a legal malpractice case brought by Sulphur Mountain Land and Livestock Co., Malibu Broadbeach L.P., and Pacific Coast Management against Knapp, Petersen & Clarke and several individuals. The trial court granted Sulphur and Malibu's motion for attorney's fees and costs, denied the defendants' motion for fees and motion to tax costs, finding Sulphur and Malibu were the prevailing parties. The defendants appeal, arguing: 1) the trial court failed to properly determine the prevailing party under Civil Code §1717 before considering C.C.P. §998; 2) even if it had, it abused its discretion in finding Sulphur and
This document summarizes an appeal regarding orders appointing a receiver and assigning financial rights to enforce a judgment in a legal malpractice case. The plaintiff had transferred his assets to various entities to avoid paying the judgment, and those entities were found to be alter egos of the plaintiff. After the plaintiff testified he had no ability to pay, the defendants filed motions to appoint a receiver and assign financial rights, which the trial court granted. The additional judgment debtors appealed the orders. The appellate court affirmed the orders, finding that the additional judgment debtors had an opportunity to oppose the motions at a hearing and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in appointing the receiver and assigning financial rights given the plaintiff's attempts to avoid paying the
BANK OF AMERICA FORECLOSURE, ANSWER, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES, COUNTERCLAIMlauren tratar
This document is an amended answer, affirmative defenses, and counterclaim filed by homeowners (Owners) in response to a foreclosure complaint brought by BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP (BAC). The Owners admit some basic facts about the mortgage but deny that BAC has the right to foreclose. They assert affirmative defenses that BAC lacks standing because the note was securitized and sold to investors prior to the alleged default. The Owners claim this means the real parties in interest are the investors, not BAC, and BAC cannot prove it has authority to foreclose. Exhibits are provided purportedly showing the loan was part of a mortgage backed securities trust.
FORECLOSURE Response to JP Morgan Chase Foreclosurelauren tratar
WAKE UP AMERICA! Banks are STEALING HOUSES they do not own nor did they pay a dime for! Mortgages were PRE-SOLD to Investors of Mortgage-Backed Securities. A bank CANNOT foreclose if it has NOTHING TO LOSE! The banks shifted the risk to the Investors and the banks took the PROMISSORY NOTES cashed them into the FRAUDULENT FEDERAL RESERVE, and then SOLD the exact same NOTES to MBS Trusts MULTIPLE TIMES!!!
The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Evenson in a landlord-tenant dispute with the Chegwiddens. The Chegwiddens appealed, arguing that their complaints about smoke and noise to Evenson provided implied notice to terminate their month-to-month lease. However, the district court found the Chegwiddens did not provide written notice of lease termination as required. Because the lease automatically renewed for February, Evenson was entitled to apply the security deposit to unpaid rent for that month. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's rulings, finding no genuine issues of material fact.
FLSA Litigation - Federal Court - MDFL Tampa - Fee Entitlement & MootnessPollard PLLC
Lawyers in FLSA cases and particularly on the defense side should view this as a cautionary tale: Tendering a check for the wages at issue does not moot the plaintiff's claim. FLSA claims are live until there is a judgment or a settlement approved by the court. And plaintiffs DO get their fees for litigating over the issue of attorneys' fees.
Simply put: A legitimate FLSA case, a skilled attorney on the plaintiff side, and defense counsel who do not understand the applicable legal framework make for disastrous results.
This document is a declaration by Richard Miyamoto in support of a judgment creditor's opposition to a debtor's motion to avoid a judicial lien. It summarizes a long legal dispute between the parties involving multiple bankruptcy filings by the debtor designed to hinder and delay collection of the judgment. It details the procedural history of the case, including previous court rulings against the debtor for failure to comply with discovery orders. Exhibits are attached documenting the lien and various court orders in the case.
This document is the defendants' closing argument in response to the plaintiffs' closing argument regarding trust documents presented in a real estate dispute. It argues that the plaintiffs' claims of fraudulent conduct by the defendant are unsupported and illogical. It asserts that the trust documents in question have no relevance to the legal issues being tried, which involve the interpretation of purchase and sale agreements for two properties. The defendant argues that the plaintiffs have presented no valid legal basis to rescind the agreements and that the evidence shows the plaintiffs were unable to complete the purchase for financial reasons.
This appeal involves post-judgment orders from a legal malpractice case brought by Sulphur Mountain Land and Livestock Co., Malibu Broadbeach L.P., and Pacific Coast Management against Knapp, Petersen & Clarke and several individuals. The trial court granted Sulphur and Malibu's motion for attorney's fees and costs, denied the defendants' motion for fees and motion to tax costs, finding Sulphur and Malibu were the prevailing parties. The defendants appeal, arguing: 1) the trial court failed to properly determine the prevailing party under Civil Code §1717 before considering C.C.P. §998; 2) even if it had, it abused its discretion in finding Sulphur and
This document summarizes an appeal regarding orders appointing a receiver and assigning financial rights to enforce a judgment in a legal malpractice case. The plaintiff had transferred his assets to various entities to avoid paying the judgment, and those entities were found to be alter egos of the plaintiff. After the plaintiff testified he had no ability to pay, the defendants filed motions to appoint a receiver and assign financial rights, which the trial court granted. The additional judgment debtors appealed the orders. The appellate court affirmed the orders, finding that the additional judgment debtors had an opportunity to oppose the motions at a hearing and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in appointing the receiver and assigning financial rights given the plaintiff's attempts to avoid paying the
BANK OF AMERICA FORECLOSURE, ANSWER, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES, COUNTERCLAIMlauren tratar
This document is an amended answer, affirmative defenses, and counterclaim filed by homeowners (Owners) in response to a foreclosure complaint brought by BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP (BAC). The Owners admit some basic facts about the mortgage but deny that BAC has the right to foreclose. They assert affirmative defenses that BAC lacks standing because the note was securitized and sold to investors prior to the alleged default. The Owners claim this means the real parties in interest are the investors, not BAC, and BAC cannot prove it has authority to foreclose. Exhibits are provided purportedly showing the loan was part of a mortgage backed securities trust.
FORECLOSURE Response to JP Morgan Chase Foreclosurelauren tratar
WAKE UP AMERICA! Banks are STEALING HOUSES they do not own nor did they pay a dime for! Mortgages were PRE-SOLD to Investors of Mortgage-Backed Securities. A bank CANNOT foreclose if it has NOTHING TO LOSE! The banks shifted the risk to the Investors and the banks took the PROMISSORY NOTES cashed them into the FRAUDULENT FEDERAL RESERVE, and then SOLD the exact same NOTES to MBS Trusts MULTIPLE TIMES!!!
Jones v. Arjun re Costs (2015 BCSC 1881)Kate Taylor
This ruling addresses costs in a personal injury case involving two motor vehicle accidents. The court found the plaintiff's injuries from the two accidents were indivisible. The plaintiff made an offer to settle for more than was ultimately awarded at trial. The court ruled the plaintiff was entitled to double costs after the date of the settlement offer, finding the offer was reasonably capable of acceptance given the medical evidence establishing indivisible injuries and risks to the defendants.
This document appears to be a record of legal filings and judgments in a court case between Sulphur Mountain Land and Livestock Co LLC and several other parties including John Redmond, Maureen Redmond, Geraldine Redmond, and Somerset Farms LLC. It includes filings such as proofs of service, judgments, appeals, motions, and other legal documents spanning from 2005 to 2015 regarding a renewal of judgment, claims of exemption, examinations of judgment debtors, transcripts for appeal, and more. The document provides a chronological record of legal proceedings and filings for this case over a ten year period.
The Court of Appeals affirms the lower court's granting of summary judgment to CitiMortgage in a foreclosure action. Maria Potvin argued she was entitled to relief under the Home Affordable Modification Program and that foreclosure was inequitable, but the court found the mediation was non-binding and she did not sign the modification agreement or make payments. The court also found the affidavit from CitiMortgage in support of summary judgment met evidentiary rules for records of regularly conducted business activities. Therefore, the appeals court denied all of Potvin's assignments of error and upheld the foreclosure.
Omni Hauling Services Inc. et. al. versus Bernardo Bon et. al.. G.R. No. 1993...PoL Sangalang
Omni Hauling Services Inc. et. al. versus Bernardo Bon et. al.. G.R. No. 199388. September 3, 2014. Supreme Court of the Philippines. Uploaded by Atty. Apollo X.C.S. Sangalang in connection with his lecture on "The Essentials of HR and Labor Law" on October 15, 2014 at the Asian Institute of Management, Makati City, Philippines.
A fictitious legal brief to remit the final judgment of bail forfeiture. Capt. Bryant issued a bond for the release of Rutger Batty who later failed to appear in court. Mr. Batty was in a Texas jail because of a prior illegal gun possession charge. Though Mr. Batty was not incarcerated in a North Carolina jail or a federal prison within the United States, Captain Bryant wants Weft and Wright, P.L.L.C. to try and get the forfeited bail money remitted.
Court Order Granting Certification of Demchak Royalty Class Action Lawsuit Se...Marcellus Drilling News
The court order that certifies the class action status of the "Demchak" royalty case in Pennsylvania against Chesapeake Energy. PA landowners sued Chesapeake Energy for shorting them on royalty payments using a technique of inflating post-production prices. This order allows the settlement to proceed.
This document is a motion for stay of judgment pending appeal filed by defendant Eurasian Auto Body, Inc. It requests that the court stay execution of the judgment for possession entered against Eurasian on April 2, 2010 while Eurasian appeals the judgment. The motion argues that Eurasian will suffer extreme hardship if forced to vacate the premises pending appeal as it would incur over $200,000 in moving costs. It also argues that the plaintiff will not be harmed by a stay as long as Eurasian pays rent during the stay period. The motion includes supporting declarations from Eurasian's attorney and principal.
Sample Bail Bond Related Criminal Law MotionsSamuel Partida
A list of common motions filed in a criminal case related to the bail bond are provided. Six sample motions are provided that a prosecutor may typically file. Seven sample motions are provided that a defense attorney may typically file over the span of a typical criminal case.
This document summarizes the background of a civil case between Madasama Goodway Sdn Bhd and Lim Eng Huat regarding the sale of a property. Key points:
- Lim Eng Huat had rented a property from Madasama and wanted to purchase it after a fire damaged the building. They signed an agreement on July 19, 2002 for RM270,000.
- Lim paid a deposit and took steps to obtain financing, but Madasama refused to complete the sale. Lim filed a lawsuit seeking specific performance of the agreement.
- The High Court ruled in Lim's favor, but Madasama appealed. The document outlines the claims and evidence presented by both sides regarding whether the agreement was
This document outlines the respondent's written submission in response to an appeal filed by the appellants against a High Court decision in favor of the respondent's winding up petition against the 1st appellant company. The respondent argues that the appeal is not valid for two reasons: 1) The company is already wound up so the 2nd appellant does not have authority to file the appeal on the company's behalf. 2) The appellants' affidavit in opposition to the winding up petition was filed late in contravention of mandatory timelines in the Companies Winding Up Rules, so it should be considered inadmissible. The respondent cites several court cases to support the argument that late filing of affidavits cannot be allowed as it violates mandatory requirements.
A court case in which a landowner in Ohio sued to cancel a lease because the driller and the company that owns the lease have not paid any royalties since drilling. The Fifth Appellate District Court of Ohio found that because a specific provision in the original lease does not provide for cancellation due to non-payment of royalties, the landowners will have to continue to get screwed.
The plaintiffs, Stephen Gaggero and additional judgment debtors, appeal from a trial court order granting the defendants' motion for postjudgment enforcement costs and accrued interest. The trial court awarded the defendants over $87,000 in enforcement costs and over $569,000 in accrued interest, which was incorporated into a third amended judgment. The plaintiffs argue that many of the costs awarded were not reasonably related to enforcement of the judgment. However, the appellate court affirms the trial court's order, finding that the defendants incurred the costs and fees while reasonably attempting to enforce the underlying judgment against plaintiffs and their alter ego entities.
When Plaintiff Offers for Defendants to Validate Plaintiff's "Lease" and "Cas...jamesmaredmond
This supplemental declaration was submitted by David Chatfield, an attorney representing Sulphur Mountain Land and Livestock Co. LLC, in opposition to a motion to compel further deposition of Stephen Gaggero. Chatfield states that he previously offered to show opposing counsel a document establishing Sulphur Mountain's right to lease the premises in question, without copying it, but received no response. Chatfield offered again by letter on August 26th and again received no response. The declaration aims to show Chatfield attempted to resolve the issue without further court action.
Loughman v EQT - Decision Rejecting Landowner Request to Sever Production Lea...Marcellus Drilling News
A case in which a Greene County, PA landowner requested the court sever production rights under a lease from storage right. The landowners say EQT never produced oil/gas from the property, and lack of production cancels that portion of the lease. PA Superior Court said no, the two are together in the same lease and one OR the other is enough to keep the lease enforceable.
This document is Plaintiff Jamil Sharif's memorandum in opposition to Defendant Decatur Hotels, LLC's motion to set aside a default judgment. Sharif argues that service of process was properly perfected on Decatur Hotels. He also argues that Decatur Hotels' failure to respond to the lawsuit was willful, precluding a finding of excusable neglect, and that setting aside the default judgment would prejudice Sharif. Therefore, Sharif asserts that the default judgment should not be set aside under Rules 60(b)(4), 60(b)(6), or 60(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Express working capital llc v Starving Students IncM P
Synopsis
Background: Buyer of corporation's future credit card receivables brought action against seller-corporation and its owner, alleging breach of contract, promissory estoppel, fraud, and fraudulent inducement. Defendants asserted usury defense and counterclaim. Parties cross-moved for summary judgment.
The official motion filed with the New York State Court of Appeals, NY's highest court, to hear the case of Norse Energy v Town of Dryden over the town's vote to ban all fracking and drilling throughout the township.
This document summarizes a decision by the Ohio Board of Tax Appeals regarding tax valuations for property owned by Kohl's Department Stores for tax years 2010 and 2013. The Board consolidated two cases regarding the same property. For tax year 2010, Kohl's appealed the dismissal of its complaint seeking a lower valuation. For tax year 2013, Kohl's appealed the denial of its request to lower the valuation. The Board remanded the 2010 case back to the local board to consider the valuation, as the county appellees failed to prove a covenant in a TIF agreement barred Kohl's appeal. For 2013, the Board found Kohl's did not provide sufficient evidence to prove its requested lower valuation.
James Walters Kellogg & Andelson - declaration 8.4.93jamesmaredmond
This document is a declaration by James F. Walters, a certified public accountant, in opposition to an application for a writ of attachment in a court case between City National Bank and Stephen Blanchard. Walters declares that he has served as the accountant for Blanchard and his construction company. He attended a meeting between Blanchard and the chairman of CNB to discuss the bank reneging on commitments to provide financing for one of Blanchard's real estate development projects. Walters asserts that most of the funds referenced in CNB's complaint were used by Blanchard for personal expenses rather than business purposes.
Motion before the Federal Court;
Bill of Costs as award of the Federal Court of Canada to the Right Honorable Major Keyvan Nourhaghighi who won a case against three Crown lawyer
File T-1020-07
Delaware Riverkeeper Legal Primer on Becoming an Intervenor in the PennEast P...Marcellus Drilling News
Slide presentation by THE Delaware Riverkeeper attorney for the anti-fossil fuel faithful training them in their legal rights as an intervenvor with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
Consumer Energy Alliance Poll of Voters in NC, VA, WV re Atlantic Coast PipelineMarcellus Drilling News
A poll conducted for the Consumer Energy Alliance that shows majorities of voters in NC, VA and WV have heard about Dominion's $5 billion, 550-mile Atlantic Coast Pipeline--and they support it. Voters overwhelmingly believe pipelines are the safest means to transport natural gas. More than 80% of the voters surveyed said energy will be a significant factor in how they vote. It also shows pipelines and drilling is a partisan issue--a majority of Republicans/Conservatives are in favor, and a majority of Democrats/Liberals are against.
Jones v. Arjun re Costs (2015 BCSC 1881)Kate Taylor
This ruling addresses costs in a personal injury case involving two motor vehicle accidents. The court found the plaintiff's injuries from the two accidents were indivisible. The plaintiff made an offer to settle for more than was ultimately awarded at trial. The court ruled the plaintiff was entitled to double costs after the date of the settlement offer, finding the offer was reasonably capable of acceptance given the medical evidence establishing indivisible injuries and risks to the defendants.
This document appears to be a record of legal filings and judgments in a court case between Sulphur Mountain Land and Livestock Co LLC and several other parties including John Redmond, Maureen Redmond, Geraldine Redmond, and Somerset Farms LLC. It includes filings such as proofs of service, judgments, appeals, motions, and other legal documents spanning from 2005 to 2015 regarding a renewal of judgment, claims of exemption, examinations of judgment debtors, transcripts for appeal, and more. The document provides a chronological record of legal proceedings and filings for this case over a ten year period.
The Court of Appeals affirms the lower court's granting of summary judgment to CitiMortgage in a foreclosure action. Maria Potvin argued she was entitled to relief under the Home Affordable Modification Program and that foreclosure was inequitable, but the court found the mediation was non-binding and she did not sign the modification agreement or make payments. The court also found the affidavit from CitiMortgage in support of summary judgment met evidentiary rules for records of regularly conducted business activities. Therefore, the appeals court denied all of Potvin's assignments of error and upheld the foreclosure.
Omni Hauling Services Inc. et. al. versus Bernardo Bon et. al.. G.R. No. 1993...PoL Sangalang
Omni Hauling Services Inc. et. al. versus Bernardo Bon et. al.. G.R. No. 199388. September 3, 2014. Supreme Court of the Philippines. Uploaded by Atty. Apollo X.C.S. Sangalang in connection with his lecture on "The Essentials of HR and Labor Law" on October 15, 2014 at the Asian Institute of Management, Makati City, Philippines.
A fictitious legal brief to remit the final judgment of bail forfeiture. Capt. Bryant issued a bond for the release of Rutger Batty who later failed to appear in court. Mr. Batty was in a Texas jail because of a prior illegal gun possession charge. Though Mr. Batty was not incarcerated in a North Carolina jail or a federal prison within the United States, Captain Bryant wants Weft and Wright, P.L.L.C. to try and get the forfeited bail money remitted.
Court Order Granting Certification of Demchak Royalty Class Action Lawsuit Se...Marcellus Drilling News
The court order that certifies the class action status of the "Demchak" royalty case in Pennsylvania against Chesapeake Energy. PA landowners sued Chesapeake Energy for shorting them on royalty payments using a technique of inflating post-production prices. This order allows the settlement to proceed.
This document is a motion for stay of judgment pending appeal filed by defendant Eurasian Auto Body, Inc. It requests that the court stay execution of the judgment for possession entered against Eurasian on April 2, 2010 while Eurasian appeals the judgment. The motion argues that Eurasian will suffer extreme hardship if forced to vacate the premises pending appeal as it would incur over $200,000 in moving costs. It also argues that the plaintiff will not be harmed by a stay as long as Eurasian pays rent during the stay period. The motion includes supporting declarations from Eurasian's attorney and principal.
Sample Bail Bond Related Criminal Law MotionsSamuel Partida
A list of common motions filed in a criminal case related to the bail bond are provided. Six sample motions are provided that a prosecutor may typically file. Seven sample motions are provided that a defense attorney may typically file over the span of a typical criminal case.
This document summarizes the background of a civil case between Madasama Goodway Sdn Bhd and Lim Eng Huat regarding the sale of a property. Key points:
- Lim Eng Huat had rented a property from Madasama and wanted to purchase it after a fire damaged the building. They signed an agreement on July 19, 2002 for RM270,000.
- Lim paid a deposit and took steps to obtain financing, but Madasama refused to complete the sale. Lim filed a lawsuit seeking specific performance of the agreement.
- The High Court ruled in Lim's favor, but Madasama appealed. The document outlines the claims and evidence presented by both sides regarding whether the agreement was
This document outlines the respondent's written submission in response to an appeal filed by the appellants against a High Court decision in favor of the respondent's winding up petition against the 1st appellant company. The respondent argues that the appeal is not valid for two reasons: 1) The company is already wound up so the 2nd appellant does not have authority to file the appeal on the company's behalf. 2) The appellants' affidavit in opposition to the winding up petition was filed late in contravention of mandatory timelines in the Companies Winding Up Rules, so it should be considered inadmissible. The respondent cites several court cases to support the argument that late filing of affidavits cannot be allowed as it violates mandatory requirements.
A court case in which a landowner in Ohio sued to cancel a lease because the driller and the company that owns the lease have not paid any royalties since drilling. The Fifth Appellate District Court of Ohio found that because a specific provision in the original lease does not provide for cancellation due to non-payment of royalties, the landowners will have to continue to get screwed.
The plaintiffs, Stephen Gaggero and additional judgment debtors, appeal from a trial court order granting the defendants' motion for postjudgment enforcement costs and accrued interest. The trial court awarded the defendants over $87,000 in enforcement costs and over $569,000 in accrued interest, which was incorporated into a third amended judgment. The plaintiffs argue that many of the costs awarded were not reasonably related to enforcement of the judgment. However, the appellate court affirms the trial court's order, finding that the defendants incurred the costs and fees while reasonably attempting to enforce the underlying judgment against plaintiffs and their alter ego entities.
When Plaintiff Offers for Defendants to Validate Plaintiff's "Lease" and "Cas...jamesmaredmond
This supplemental declaration was submitted by David Chatfield, an attorney representing Sulphur Mountain Land and Livestock Co. LLC, in opposition to a motion to compel further deposition of Stephen Gaggero. Chatfield states that he previously offered to show opposing counsel a document establishing Sulphur Mountain's right to lease the premises in question, without copying it, but received no response. Chatfield offered again by letter on August 26th and again received no response. The declaration aims to show Chatfield attempted to resolve the issue without further court action.
Loughman v EQT - Decision Rejecting Landowner Request to Sever Production Lea...Marcellus Drilling News
A case in which a Greene County, PA landowner requested the court sever production rights under a lease from storage right. The landowners say EQT never produced oil/gas from the property, and lack of production cancels that portion of the lease. PA Superior Court said no, the two are together in the same lease and one OR the other is enough to keep the lease enforceable.
This document is Plaintiff Jamil Sharif's memorandum in opposition to Defendant Decatur Hotels, LLC's motion to set aside a default judgment. Sharif argues that service of process was properly perfected on Decatur Hotels. He also argues that Decatur Hotels' failure to respond to the lawsuit was willful, precluding a finding of excusable neglect, and that setting aside the default judgment would prejudice Sharif. Therefore, Sharif asserts that the default judgment should not be set aside under Rules 60(b)(4), 60(b)(6), or 60(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Express working capital llc v Starving Students IncM P
Synopsis
Background: Buyer of corporation's future credit card receivables brought action against seller-corporation and its owner, alleging breach of contract, promissory estoppel, fraud, and fraudulent inducement. Defendants asserted usury defense and counterclaim. Parties cross-moved for summary judgment.
The official motion filed with the New York State Court of Appeals, NY's highest court, to hear the case of Norse Energy v Town of Dryden over the town's vote to ban all fracking and drilling throughout the township.
This document summarizes a decision by the Ohio Board of Tax Appeals regarding tax valuations for property owned by Kohl's Department Stores for tax years 2010 and 2013. The Board consolidated two cases regarding the same property. For tax year 2010, Kohl's appealed the dismissal of its complaint seeking a lower valuation. For tax year 2013, Kohl's appealed the denial of its request to lower the valuation. The Board remanded the 2010 case back to the local board to consider the valuation, as the county appellees failed to prove a covenant in a TIF agreement barred Kohl's appeal. For 2013, the Board found Kohl's did not provide sufficient evidence to prove its requested lower valuation.
James Walters Kellogg & Andelson - declaration 8.4.93jamesmaredmond
This document is a declaration by James F. Walters, a certified public accountant, in opposition to an application for a writ of attachment in a court case between City National Bank and Stephen Blanchard. Walters declares that he has served as the accountant for Blanchard and his construction company. He attended a meeting between Blanchard and the chairman of CNB to discuss the bank reneging on commitments to provide financing for one of Blanchard's real estate development projects. Walters asserts that most of the funds referenced in CNB's complaint were used by Blanchard for personal expenses rather than business purposes.
Motion before the Federal Court;
Bill of Costs as award of the Federal Court of Canada to the Right Honorable Major Keyvan Nourhaghighi who won a case against three Crown lawyer
File T-1020-07
Delaware Riverkeeper Legal Primer on Becoming an Intervenor in the PennEast P...Marcellus Drilling News
Slide presentation by THE Delaware Riverkeeper attorney for the anti-fossil fuel faithful training them in their legal rights as an intervenvor with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
Consumer Energy Alliance Poll of Voters in NC, VA, WV re Atlantic Coast PipelineMarcellus Drilling News
A poll conducted for the Consumer Energy Alliance that shows majorities of voters in NC, VA and WV have heard about Dominion's $5 billion, 550-mile Atlantic Coast Pipeline--and they support it. Voters overwhelmingly believe pipelines are the safest means to transport natural gas. More than 80% of the voters surveyed said energy will be a significant factor in how they vote. It also shows pipelines and drilling is a partisan issue--a majority of Republicans/Conservatives are in favor, and a majority of Democrats/Liberals are against.
The latest PowerPoint slide deck Chessy pushed out to investors and analysts recapping 2014 results and looking forward to 2015. The company is slashing its budget in 2015 and curtailing production in some regions like the Marcellus.
A report published by the non-partisan think tank R Street Institute. After conducting an extensive review of existing published studies, R Street has found that while every form of energy has its negatives, including fracking, on the whole fracking for shale energy's benefits far outweigh its negatives.
Research: Shale 2.0: Technology and the Coming Big-Data Revolution in America...Marcellus Drilling News
A paper published by Mark Mills with the Manhattan Institute. The report explores and debunks the current meme coming from mainstream media, Saudi Arabia and other opponents of shale energy that with the current low price climate shale energy in the U.S. is done...fini...kaput. Mark Mills, Senior Fellow at the Manhattan Institute and author of the paper, says Shale 1.0 is now done, having run it's course. But we're still very early in the game and Shale 2.0 is just getting started.
A white paper/study authored by Katie Klaber of the Klaber Group (consultants). Klaber is the former president of the Marcellus Shale Coalition. The study details how small Pennsylvania companies can be successful in delivering new products and services to the oil and gas industry.
Trends in Hydraulic Fracturing Distributions and Treatment Fluids, Additives,...Marcellus Drilling News
A new study (one of two) from the US Geological Service that evaluates nearly 1 million fracked oil and gas wells from 1947-2010. The study looks at how fracking technology has changed and evolved, making it safer and more productive.
The Susquehanna River Basin Commission has conducted ongoing water quality monitoring through a state-of-the-art monitoring network in the Susquehanna River Basin to measure whether or not the presence of Marcellus Shale drilling affects water quality in rivers and streams within the basin. This latest report, with the most data analyzed from 2010-2013, shows that Marcellus drilling has had no effect on the quality of water in the Susquehanna River Basin.
A sham report from the so-called Union of Concerned Scientists that tries to denigrate clean-burning natural gas and its use as a fuel to generate electricity. They liken it to a gamble on our future.
Data compiled by the American Petroleum Institute that shows America's carbon footprint is shrinking--due to a conversion in using more natural gas. The free market works far better than any government edict to lessen our carbon footprint.
The latest PowerPoint slide deck MarkWest pushed out to investors and analysts recapping 2014 results and looking forward to 2015. MarkWest, a midstream (pipelines & processing plants) company continues its expansion in the northeast and is perhaps the biggest midstreamer in the Marcellus/Utica.
Slides used during the Feb 13, 2015 analyst call for DTE Energy. Of interest to us is the discussion surrounding the Marcellus/Utica Shale and the big role it plays in the company's future. DTE projects impacted by northeast shale include the Millennium Pipeline, Bluestone Gathering System, NEXUS Pipeline and Vector Pipeline.
This letter requests that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) initiate its pre-filing process for the proposed NEXUS Gas Transmission Project, a new greenfield natural gas pipeline. The pipeline would transport 1.5 billion cubic feet of natural gas per day from the Marcellus and Utica shale regions to markets in the Midwest United States and Ontario, Canada. Representatives of NEXUS Gas Transmission met with FERC staff on December 17th to discuss use of the pre-filing process. NEXUS plans to file its formal certificate application with FERC following completion of the pre-filing process in order to meet a targeted in-service date of November 1st, 2017.
The document provides an overview of Antero Resources Corporation. It contains forward-looking statements regarding estimates, plans, strategies, objectives, anticipated financial and operating results, and other expectations. These statements are based on certain assumptions and are subject to risks and uncertainties. It cautions readers that actual results could differ materially from forward-looking statements. The company has updated certain slides since its prior presentation in October 2015 to reflect changes in pricing, liquidity, debt position, and other financial and operating statistics as of September 30, 2015.
An updated PowerPoint from COG presented at the Barclays CEO Energy/Power Conference 2015 in New York City, September 2015. Cabot is one of (perhaps THE) most successful drillers in the Marcellus Shale.
A new report by the U.S. Geological Survey titled, "Incorporating Induced Seismicity in the 2014 United States National Seismic Hazard Model—Results of 2014 Workshop and Sensitivity Studies". The report updates the USGS' best guesses on how they determine whether or not injection wells are causing man-made earthquakes. This is their latest thinking/data/models.
Research: A new process to remove salt and organic compounds from frack waste...Marcellus Drilling News
A new process was developed by researchers at University of Colorado Boulder to treat frack wastewater using a "simpler" yet effective method. The research explaining the process is published as the cover story in the journal Environmental Science Water Research & Technology, January 2015 issue.
A list (as of November 2015) of 36 oil and gas companies that filed for bankruptcy protection in 2015. The downturn in prices has affected many O&G companies. Law firm Haynes and Boone track the list, and warn that others may yet be added to it before the end of 2015.
Sulphur Moutain vs. John Redmond, et al - B238767jamesmaredmond
This document summarizes a court case involving a dispute over the sale of a home to satisfy an unpaid judgment. The plaintiff obtained a judgment against the defendants and sought to enforce it by selling their home. The defendants claimed a homestead exemption to protect part of the equity in their home. The trial court approved the sale of the home, finding the defendants could not claim the exemption again since they used it in a prior bankruptcy proceeding. The appellate court reversed, finding no basis for the plaintiff's argument that the homestead exemption can only be used once. The appellate court also found the plaintiff's lien on the property was effective as of 2002, not the later date determined by the trial court. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent
This document is a Supreme Court of India case summary. [1] It involves an appeal by the Salkia Businessmen's Association regarding displacement from their businesses for a flyover construction project. [2] A prior court order had disposed of the case based on a settlement agreement between the parties, which included providing alternative accommodations. [3] However, the authorities did not fully comply and proposed alternate terms, so the Association appealed again seeking enforcement of the original order terms. The Supreme Court allows the appeal, finding that the High Court failed to properly enforce its own prior orders binding the parties.
Miles v. deutsche bank national trust company | find lawJustin Gluesing
This document summarizes a court case involving allegations of wrongful foreclosure. It discusses the plaintiff's claims that the loan servicer engaged in fraudulent behavior during loan modification negotiations, including changing the terms of agreements and demanding unnecessary fees. The court found that the plaintiff had adequately stated claims for breach of contract, fraud, and misrepresentation. It reversed the lower court's dismissal of these claims and the granting of summary judgment on the wrongful foreclosure claim, finding factual disputes remained. The court concluded the plaintiff may be entitled to damages beyond just the lost property value if the foreclosure was wrongful.
City Water International Inc. v. 816580 Ontario Inc.Matthew Riddell
City Water International Inc. sued 816580 Ontario Inc. for breach of a 60-month water cooler rental contract. 816580 terminated the contract early, in its 11th month, citing financial difficulties. City Water argued the contract was non-cancellable. The court found the contract language unambiguously stated it was non-cancellable. The court also found the acceleration clause valid and not a penalty, as it simply required payment of the remaining balance owed. Therefore, the court ruled in favor of City Water and awarded damages of $3,082, the remaining balance due under the contract, plus costs.
City Water International Inc. v. Wax Hairdressing Inc.Matthew Riddell
This case involves a dispute over a renewal contract for the rental of a water cooler. The plaintiff, City Water International Inc., claimed the defendant, Wax Hairdressing Inc., breached the renewal contract by failing to make payments. The court found that the individual who signed the renewal contract on behalf of Wax Hairdressing had apparent authority to bind the company. The court also found Wax Hairdressing was estopped from arguing it was not bound by the contract given it made payments according to the contract for years. The court awarded damages of $1879.25 to the plaintiff.
1) The case involved a dispute between a contractor (Appellant 1) and client (Respondent) regarding a construction project, as well as a subsequent oral agreement replacing Appellant 1 with Appellant 2 to oversee construction.
2) The Respondent filed to stay the civil suit under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act, arguing the disputes were subject to arbitration clauses in the written and oral agreements.
3) The Supreme Court ruled the appellants could jointly file the suit and it was not misjoinder. It also ruled the disputes must be referred to the sole arbitrator previously appointed, as per the arbitration clauses.
Conduct of arbitral proceeding part 2 vaibhav goyalVaibhav Goyal
Within the period of time agreed upon by the parties or determined by the arbitral tribunal, the claimant shall state the facts supporting his claim, the points at issue and the relief or remedy sought, and the respondent shall state his defence in respect of these particulars, unless the parties have otherwise agreed as to the required elements of those statements.
City Water International Inc v Polex Manufacturing Ltd Matthew Riddell
This case involved a dispute over a rental agreement and service agreement for water filtration equipment between City Water International Inc. and Polex Manufacturing (Canada) Ltd. The court found that the rental agreement was a pure rental agreement, not a rent-to-own as Polex claimed. The court ruled that Polex owed $206.55 for the one-year automatic renewal period under the rental agreement. However, the court dismissed claims related to the service agreement, as City Water had breached it by failing to properly service the equipment. The court also dismissed City Water's largest claim of $3,000 for the lost equipment, as the equipment was not actually lost but still in Polex's possession. The court ordered Pole
Case analysis of kenanga innovasi sdn bhd v toh kin lamLatifah Kaiyisah
The plaintiff purchased agricultural land from the defendants but is seeking a refund of excess purchase price paid. The defendants counterclaimed for unpaid interest. There were oral negotiations for extensions of time to pay the balance that were affirmed in letters. While the negotiations were oral, the plaintiff's actions showed acceptance of the terms by paying interest for several extensions. When the plaintiff failed to pay the balance by the final extended deadline, the defendants terminated the sale agreement. The court found for the defendants, holding that the oral negotiations were accepted and the plaintiff breached the contract by not paying the balance on time.
March 2018 newsletter for the adjudicator nominating body UK Adjudicators. Articles on UK and foreign adjudication cases, FIDIC 2017 and events taking place globally.
The applicant sought to set aside a statutory demand issued by the respondent claiming US$249,216.15 was owed. The applicant argued there was a genuine dispute as to the debt because: (1) tools supplied by the respondent in 2011 were defective, incomplete, and caused the applicant to lose a lucrative contract; (2) in June 2012, the parties entered a compromise agreement with a payment plan, which the respondent later repudiated; and (3) the debt claimed was the same as in the repudiated agreement. The court set aside the statutory demand, finding a genuine dispute existed as to the debt claimed.
This document is a memorandum opinion from a US District Court case between I/P Engine, Inc. and various defendants including AOL, Google, and others. The court is determining an ongoing royalty rate for the defendants' continued infringement of I/P Engine's patents related to online advertising systems. The court considers the 3.5% running royalty rate from the previous jury verdict as a starting point. After analyzing additional factors related to the defendants now being adjudged infringers, the court sets the ongoing royalty rate at 6.5%, consisting of a 4.6% base rate plus a 1.9% enhancement for willful infringement.
This document discusses a bankruptcy court case regarding the sale of an internet domain name. The key points are:
1) The debtor (Heath Global) had agreed to purchase the "Invest.com" domain name from Jim Magner for $2 million in installments over two years.
2) After Heath Global missed an installment payment, Magner sent a notice purporting to terminate the agreement based on a clause allowing termination if a payment was not cured within 7 days.
3) Before the 7-day cure period expired, Heath Global filed for bankruptcy. The bankruptcy court found the agreement had automatically terminated pre-petition.
4) On appeal, the district court found that the agreement
This document is an excerpt from an omnibus order written by the author for a judge regarding a credit card collection case. The order summarizes that while the plaintiff established a valid contract existed between the creditor and defendant, the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient documentation proving a valid assignment of the debt from the creditor to the plaintiff. As a result, the judge granted summary judgment for the defendant rather than the plaintiff.
City Water v. Wellness Beauty Spa (appeal proper & single judge)Matthew Riddell
The appellant, City Water International Inc., appeals a small claims court decision dismissing its claim against the respondent, Wellness Beauty Spa, for breach of contract and unpaid fees relating to the rental of a water filtration system. The trial judge found that the respondent's principal did not understand the 5-year rental term, that the system had deficiencies especially with hot water, and that the appellant improperly withdrew a full annual payment at once. However, the Divisional Court found that the trial judge misapprehended the evidence by not adequately explaining why she preferred the respondent's evidence over the appellant's or addressing evidence contradicting her conclusions. The appeal was allowed, the trial decision was set aside, and judgment was entered for the appellant in
The Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division ruled that the lower court erred in granting the defendant's motion and denying the plaintiff's cross motion regarding the distribution of the plaintiff's Time Warner Deferred Compensation Plan. The appellate court found that the settlement agreement provision regarding distribution of the plan contained a mutual mistake, as the plan was not actually eligible for distribution through a Qualified Domestic Relations Order as the agreement specified. Therefore, the provision required reformation to reflect that the defendant should receive 50% of the net proceeds after taxes rather than the pre-tax gross amount. The appellate court also denied the defendant's request for attorney's fees.
The document summarizes five key facts about the recovery of US shale oil production:
1) Rig counts have increased by 90% since bottoming out in May 2016 and are up 30% year-over-year, signaling increased drilling and production capacity.
2) While decline rates remain steep, production profiles have increased substantially due to technological advances, meaning aggregate supply will be stronger.
3) Preliminary data shows that net new shale supply turned positive in December 2016 for the first time since March 2015, recovering just 7 months after rig counts increased.
4) Increased drilling activity is supported by a large stock of drilled but uncompleted wells, demonstrating the recovery and expansion of the shale sector.
5)
Quarterly legislative action update: Marcellus and Utica shale region (4Q16)Marcellus Drilling News
A quarterly update from the legal beagles at global law firm Norton Rose Fulbright. A quarterly legislative action update for the second quarter of 2016 looking at previously laws acted upon, and new laws introduced, affecting the oil and gas industry in Pennsylvania, Ohio and West Virginia.
An update from Spectra Energy on their proposed $3 billion project to connect four existing pipeline systems to flow more Marcellus/Utica gas to New England. In short, Spectra has put the project on pause until mid-2017 while it attempts to get new customers signed.
A letter from Rover Pipeline to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission requesting the agency issue the final certificate that will allow Rover to begin tree-clearing and construction of the 511-mile pipeline through Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio and Michigan. If the certificate is delayed beyond the end of 2016, it will delay the project an extra year due to tree-clearing restrictions (to accommodate federally-protected bats).
DOE Order Granting Elba Island LNG Right to Export to Non-FTA CountriesMarcellus Drilling News
An order issued by the U.S. Dept. of Energy that allows the Elba Island LNG export facility to export LNG to countries with no free trade agreement with the U.S. Countries like Japan and India have no FTA with our country (i.e. friendly countries)--so this is good news indeed. Although the facility would have operated by sending LNG to FTA countries, this order opens the market much wider.
A study released in December 2016 by the London School of Economics, titled "On the Comparative Advantage of U.S. Manufacturing: Evidence from the Shale Gas Revolution." While America has enough shale gas to export plenty of it, exporting it is not as economic as exporting oil due to the elaborate processes to liquefy and regassify natural gas--therefore a lot of the gas stays right here at home, making the U.S. one of (if not the) cheapest places on the planet to establish manufacturing plants, especially for manufacturers that use natural gas and NGLs (natural gas liquids). Therefore, manufacturing, especially in the petrochemical sector, is ramping back up in the U.S. For every two jobs created by fracking, another one job is created in the manufacturing sector.
Letter From 24 States Asking Trump & Congress to Withdraw the Unlawful Clean ...Marcellus Drilling News
A letter from the attorneys general from 24 of the states opposed to the Obama Clean Power Plan to President-Elect Trump, RINO Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnel and RINO House Speaker Paul Ryan. The letter asks Trump to dump the CPP on Day One when he takes office, and asks Congress to adopt legislation to prevent the EPA from such an egregious overreach ever again.
Report: New U.S. Power Costs: by County, with Environmental ExternalitiesMarcellus Drilling News
Natural gas and wind are the lowest-cost technology options for new electricity generation across much of the U.S. when cost, public health impacts and environmental effects are considered. So says this new research paper released by The University of Texas at Austin. Researchers assessed multiple generation technologies including coal, natural gas, solar, wind and nuclear. Their findings are depicted in a series of maps illustrating the cost of each generation technology on a county-by-county basis throughout the U.S.
Annual report issued by the U.S. Energy Information Administration showing oil and natural gas proved reserves, in this case for 2015. These reports are issued almost a year after the period for which they report. This report shows proved reserves for natural gas dropped by 64.5 trillion cubic feet (Tcf), or 16.6%. U.S. crude oil and lease condensate proved reserves also decreased--from 39.9 billion barrels to 35.2 billion barrels (down 11.8%) in 2015. Proved reserves are calculated on a number of factors, including price.
The document is a report from the U.S. Energy Information Administration analyzing oil and gas production from seven regions in the U.S. It includes charts and tables showing historical and projected production levels of oil and gas from each region from 2008 to 2017, as well as metrics like the average production per rig. The regions - Bakken, Eagle Ford, Haynesville, Marcellus, Niobrara, Permian, and Utica - accounted for 92% of domestic oil production growth and all domestic natural gas production growth from 2011-2014.
Velocys is the manufacturer of gas-to-liquids (GTL) plants that convert natural gas (a hyrdocarbon) into other hydrocarbons, like diesel fuel, gasoline, and even waxes. This PowerPoint presentation lays out the Velocys plan to get the company growing. GTL plants have not (so far) taken off in the U.S. Velocys hopes to change that. They specialize in small GTL plants.
PA DEP Revised Permit for Natural Gas Compression Stations, Processing Plants...Marcellus Drilling News
In January 2016, Gov. Wolf announced the DEP would revise its current general permit (GP-5) to update the permitting requirements for sources at natural gas compression, processing, and transmission facilities. This is the revised GP-5.
PA DEP Permit for Unconventional NatGas Well Site Operations and Remote Piggi...Marcellus Drilling News
In January 2016, PA Gov. Wolf announced the Dept. of Environmental Protection would develop a general permit for sources at new or modified unconventional well sites and remote pigging stations (GP-5A). This is the proposed permit.
Onerous new regulations for the Pennsylvania Marcellus Shale industry proposed by the state Dept. of Environmental Protection. The new regs will, according to the DEP, help PA reduce so-called fugitive methane emissions and some types of air pollution (VOCs). This is liberal Gov. Tom Wolf's way of addressing mythical man-made global warming.
The monthly Short-Term Energy Outlook (STEO) from the U.S. Energy Information Administration for December 2016. This issue makes a couple of key points re natural gas: (1) EIA predicts that natural gas production in the U.S. for 2016 will see a healthy decline over 2015 levels--1.3 billion cubic feet per day (Bcf/d) less in 2016. That's the first annual production decline since 2005! (2) The EIA predicts the average price for natural gas at the benchmark Henry Hub will climb from $2.49/Mcf (thousand cubic feet) in 2016 to a whopping $3.27/Mcf in 2017. Why the jump? Growing domestic natural gas consumption, along with higher pipeline exports to Mexico and liquefied natural gas exports.
This document provides an overview of the natural gas market in the Northeast United States, including New England, New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. It details statistics on gas customers, consumption, infrastructure like pipelines and storage, and production. A key point is that the development of the Marcellus Shale in Pennsylvania has significantly increased domestic gas production in the region and reduced its reliance on other supply basins and imports.
The Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission responded to each point raised in a draft copy of the PA Auditor General's audit of how Act 13 impact fee money, raised from Marcellus Shale drillers, gets spent by local municipalities. The PUC says it's not their job to monitor how the money gets spent, only in how much is raised and distributed.
Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission Act 13/Impact Fees Audit by PA Auditor...Marcellus Drilling News
A biased look at how 60% of impact fees raised from PA's shale drilling are spent, by the anti-drilling PA Auditor General. He chose to ignore an audit of 40% of the impact fees, which go to Harrisburg and disappear into the black hole of Harrisburg spending. The Auditor General claims, without basis in fact, that up to 24% of the funds are spent on items not allowed under the Act 13 law.
The final report from the Pennsylvania Dept. of Environmental Protection that finds, after several years of testing, no elevated levels of radiation from acid mine drainage coming from the Clyde Mine, flowing into Ten Mile Creek. Radical anti-drillers tried to smear the Marcellus industry with false claims of illegal wastewater dumping into the mine, with further claims of elevated radiation levels in the creek. After years of testing, the DEP found those allegations to be false.
FERC Order Denying Stay of Kinder Morgan's Broad Run Expansion ProjectMarcellus Drilling News
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission denied a request to stay the authorization of Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company's Broad Run Expansion Project. The Commission found that the intervenors requesting the stay did not demonstrate they would suffer irreparable harm if the project proceeded. Specifically, the Commission determined that the environmental impacts to forest and a nearby animal rehabilitation center would be insignificant. Additionally, conditioning authorization on future permits did not improperly encroach on state authority. Therefore, justice did not require granting a stay.
Essential Tools for Modern PR Business .pptxPragencyuk
Discover the essential tools and strategies for modern PR business success. Learn how to craft compelling news releases, leverage press release sites and news wires, stay updated with PR news, and integrate effective PR practices to enhance your brand's visibility and credibility. Elevate your PR efforts with our comprehensive guide.
El Puerto de Algeciras continúa un año más como el más eficiente del continente europeo y vuelve a situarse en el “top ten” mundial, según el informe The Container Port Performance Index 2023 (CPPI), elaborado por el Banco Mundial y la consultora S&P Global.
El informe CPPI utiliza dos enfoques metodológicos diferentes para calcular la clasificación del índice: uno administrativo o técnico y otro estadístico, basado en análisis factorial (FA). Según los autores, esta dualidad pretende asegurar una clasificación que refleje con precisión el rendimiento real del puerto, a la vez que sea estadísticamente sólida. En esta edición del informe CPPI 2023, se han empleado los mismos enfoques metodológicos y se ha aplicado un método de agregación de clasificaciones para combinar los resultados de ambos enfoques y obtener una clasificación agregada.
Acolyte Episodes review (TV series) The Acolyte. Learn about the influence of the program on the Star Wars world, as well as new characters and story twists.
Here is Gabe Whitley's response to my defamation lawsuit for him calling me a rapist and perjurer in court documents.
You have to read it to believe it, but after you read it, you won't believe it. And I included eight examples of defamatory statements/
An astonishing, first-of-its-kind, report by the NYT assessing damage in Ukraine. Even if the war ends tomorrow, in many places there will be nothing to go back to.
Dewing v. Abarta Oil & Gas Co. - PA Superior Court Ruling
1. J-S49012-15
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
ANDREW R. AND SALLY A. DEWING, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellants
v.
ABARTA OIL & GAS CO., INC. TALISMAN
ENERGY USA, INC., AND RANGE
RESOURCES APPALACHIA, LLC,
Appellees No. 268 MDA 2015
Appeal from the Order Entered January 30, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Bradford County
Civil Division at No(s): 10 CV 000480
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., ALLEN, J., and OLSON, J.
MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.: FILED SEPTEMBER 04, 2015
Andrew R. and Sally A. Dewing (the Dewings), husband and wife,
appeal from the order dated January 30, 2015, and entered on the docket
on February 3, 2015, which, after remand from this Court, reinstated the
trial court’s February 25, 2011 order, entering judgment in favor of Abarta
Oil & Gas Co., Inc. (Abarta), Talisman Evergy USA, Inc. (Talisman), and
Range Resources (Range) (collectively Appellees). We affirm.
This Court set forth the extensive factual and procedural posture of
this case in a prior decision, stating:
The Dewings own more than 493 acres of land located in
Warren Township, Bradford County, Pennsylvania. On April 3,
2001, the Dewings, as lessors, entered into a ten-year oil and
gas lease with Central Appalachian Petroleum (CAP), as lessees.
The lease requires a payment of delay rental of $5.00 per acre
2. J-S49012-15
- 2 -
annually to maintain the lease during the primary term unless
and until a well is drilled on the property or a well unit is drilled
and such well produces oil and/or gas in commercial quantities.
Appellees are the successors-in-interest of CAP and co-lessees
under the lease. Appellees had working interests in the lease
and paid the annual delay rental to the Dewings for years.
On April 13, 2010, the Dewings gave Abarta notice that
the delay rental payment due on the third of that month had not
been received. By email on April 20, 2010, the Dewings’
attorney notified Talisman’s counsel of Abarta’s failure to pay the
delay rental. The following day, Talisman’s counsel advised the
Dewings that Range was handling all administrative matters
related to the lease, including, but not limited to, paying delay
rentals. From April 26, 2010 through June 21, 2010, the
Dewings received no delay rental payments from Appellees. By
letter dated June 21, 2010, the Dewings served notice on Range,
with a copy to Talisman, advising them that the lease was being
terminated as a result of the delinquent delay rental payments
and in accordance with the lease’s forfeiture provision. In the
letter, the Dewings requested that Appellees file a release of the
lease. On July 2, 2010, Range sent the Dewings a check for the
delinquent delay rentals.
On August 3, 2010, the Dewings commenced the
underlying action against Appellees alleging termination of and
abandonment of the lease. In the complaint, the Dewings
sought a declaration that: (1) they have the right to file an
action for forfeiture pursuant to the forfeiture provision in the
lease; (2) the lease is terminated as a result of Appellees’ failure
to timely pay the delay rental; and (3) the Appellees’ failure to
pay the delay rental, after receiving a demand for payment,
evidences the abandonment of the lease and also constitutes a
material breach. On August 20, 2010, Appellees filed an
answer/new matter asserting that their untimely remittance of
the delay rental monies does not give rise to the remedy of
forfeiture, that the lease remains in full force and effect, that the
forfeiture clause in the lease is not “automatic,” and that the
untimely payment of money due under the lease is not a
material breach. On August 23, 2010, Appellees moved for a
preliminary injunction, claiming therein that the Dewings refused
to provide access to the property and to consent to Appellees’
reasonable selection of well pad, access road, and pipeline
3. J-S49012-15
- 3 -
locations. The Dewings opposed the request for injunctive relief,
arguing the lease was subject to termination.
The parties submitted a joint statement of stipulated facts;
oral argument on a ruling regarding the stipulated facts was
subsequently held. At the beginning of the hearing, the parties
agreed that the sole legal issue before the court was whether the
forfeiture provision in the lease was an “automatic forfeiture”
rendering any untimely payment a material breach that gives the
Dewings the right to terminate the lease. After conducting
the equivalent of a stipulated non-jury trial, the trial court
concluded that the parties’ lease provision was not an
“automatic forfeiture” provision, that Appellees had not
materially breached the lease, that notice of a demand for
payment is not, in and of itself, sufficient to obtain
forfeiture at trial, and no other evidence suggested that
the Appellees had abandoned the lease. Based on these
conclusions, on January 14, 2011, the trial court granted a
preliminary injunction in favor of Appellees. However, because
the parties had agreed to convert the injunction hearing into a
hearing on the merits, the court issued an order, on February
25, 2011, entering final judgment in favor of Appellees on their
counterclaims and dismissing all claims in the Dewings’
complaint.
Dewing v. Abarta Oil & Gas Co., Inc., et al., No. 1537 MDA 2013,
unpublished memorandum at 1-4 (Pa. Super. filed September 25, 2014)
(footnotes omitted) (emphasis added).
The Dewings filed post-trial motions, which Appellees claimed were
untimely filed. Eventually, judgment was entered and the Dewings filed a
notice of appeal. Upon review, this Court held that because the trial court
had failed to determine whether the Dewings’ post-trial motions were timely
filed, it was necessary to vacate the judgment and remand to allow the trial
court to determine the timeliness issue. See id. After a hearing was held
on January 22, 2015, the court found that the Dewings’ post-trial motions
4. J-S49012-15
- 4 -
had been filed in a timely manner and that the issues raised were properly
preserved. See Finding of Facts and Order, 1/30/15. Thus, as ordered in
February of 2011, the court re-entered judgment in favor of Appellees and
the Dewings again filed an appeal. They raise the following issue for our
review:
Whether the court erred in entering final judgment in favor of
[A]ppellees when the plain language of the lease as well as the
joint statement of stipulated facts indicates that judgment
should have been entered in favor of [the Dewings]?
Dewings Brief at 5. In the issue they raise, the Dewings request that we
review the trial court’s interpretation of the lease language dealing with the
forfeiture clause. They also assert that the court erred by requiring proof of
abandonment by Appellees.
We begin by setting forth the specific language of the lease that is in
contention in this case. Subparagraph J of the lease states:
(J) LIMITATION OF FORFEITURE: This Lease shall never be
subject to a civil action or other proceeding to enforce a claim of
forfeiture due to Lessee’s alleged failure to perform as specified
herein, unless Lessee has received written notice of Lessor’s
demand and thereafter fails or refuses to satisfy Lessor’s
demand within 60 days from the receipt of the notice.
We further recognize that this Court in our earlier memorandum decision
explained the basis for the trial court’s decision granting a preliminary
injunction and noted that the trial court used the same reasons for ruling on
the merits in Appellees’ favor and against the Dewings in dismissing all of
5. J-S49012-15
- 5 -
their claims. See Dewing, supra (note highlighted sentence in quoted
material above).
When this Court reviews the interpretation of language in a lease, we
apply contract principles and property law. McCausland v. Wagner, 78
A.3d 1093, 1100 (Pa. Super. 2013). The McCausland decision provides
further guidance, stating:
“[T]he object in interpreting instruments relating to oil and
gas interests, like any written instrument, ‘is to ascertain and
effectuate the intention of the parties.’” Szymanowski v.
Brace, 987 A.2d 717, 720 (Pa. Super. 2009) (citation omitted).
In interpreting a contract, the ultimate goal is to
ascertain and give effect to the intent of the parties
as reasonably manifested by the language of their
written agreement. When construing agreements
involving clear and unambiguous terms, this Court
need only examine the writing itself to give effect to
the parties’ understanding. This Court must
construe the contract only as written and may not
modify the plain meaning under the guise of
interpretation.
Id. at 722 (citation and emphasis omitted).
To show a breach of contract, a party must establish: “(1)
the existence of a contract, including its essential terms, (2) a
breach of a duty imposed by the contract, and (3) resultant
damages.” Hart v. Arnold, 884 A.2d 316, 332 (Pa. Super.
2005). When performance of a duty under a contract is due,
any nonperformance is a breach. Widmer Engineering, Inc.
v. Dufalla, 837 A.2d 459, 467-468 (Pa. Super. 2003). If a
breach constitutes a material failure of performance, the non-
breaching party is relieved from any obligation to perform; thus,
a party who has materially breached a contract may not insist
upon performance of the contract by the non-breaching party.
LJL Transp., Inc. v. Pilot Air Freight Corp., 599 Pa. 546, 962
A.2d 639, 648 (Pa. 2009). Conversely, a party might breach the
6. J-S49012-15
- 6 -
contract but still substantially perform its obligations under the
agreement. Cimina v. Bronich, 517 Pa. 378, 537 A.2d 1355,
1358 (Pa. 1988). In that case, the breach is deemed
nonmaterial and the contract remains in effect. Id. The
breaching party retains the right to enforce the contract and
demand performance; the nonbreaching party has no right to
suspend performance. Widmer Engineering, Inc., 837 A.2d at
468.
Id. at 1101.
The Dewings contend that there are two types of forfeiture clauses
using the “unless” language, namely (1) an “[u]nless [c]lause [w]ithout
[e]xpress [p]rovision for [f]orfeiture” or (2) an “[u]nless [c]lause with
[f]orfeiture.” See Dewings’ Brief at 14. The Dewings explain that the first
type of “unless” clause does not allow the lessor to terminate the lease when
lessee fails to pay delay rental, and lessor may only bring an action for
damages. With regard to the second type of “unless” clause containing a
forfeiture provision, the lessor may choose to bring an action to terminate
the lease. Id. at 15. Thus, the Dewings assert that because the clause in
the lease agreement at issue is of the second type of forfeiture clause,
Appellees had a duty to pay the delay rental or drill. Since Appellees did
neither, the Dewings claim they had the right to bring this action to
terminate the lease, so long as the two conditions precedent were satisfied,
i.e., notice to lessee and a failure or refusal to satisfy lessor’s demand within
60 days of receipt of the notice. The Dewings acknowledge that
subparagraph J of the lease is not an automatic forfeiture provision. Rather,
they claim that it allows them to bring this action, or otherwise the parties’
7. J-S49012-15
- 7 -
intent in entering into the lease would be invalidated and their bargained for
remedy would be void. Id. at 20.
The Dewings also contend that Appellees’ action in failing to pay the
delay rental payment within the sixty-day cure period was a material breach
of the lease, a question that they argue was not reached by the trial court.
They further contend that if we agree that a breach did occur, there is
insufficient evidence on which to determine the materiality of the breach and
a remand is necessary.
However, in reviewing the language of the trial court’s January 14,
2011 order, we recognize that its reasoning supports a conclusion that
although Appellees breached a contractual duty, it was not a material breach
that would allow for forfeiture. The court also appears to have found that
the Dewings did not present evidence regarding abandonment of the lease
by Appellees and that, therefore, their remedy was an action to recover the
delay rental, not forfeiture. The court relied on Girolami v. Peoples
Natural Gas Co., 76 A.2d 375 (Pa. 1950), wherein our Supreme Court
explained:
The lease in suit contains no provision for its automatic
termination in the event of the failure of the lessee to drill or to
pay the delay rental, nor any express reservation of the power of
forfeiture. It therefore leaves the lessors to an action at law for
the rentals and is subject to rescission only upon clear proof of
its abandonment by the lessee[.]
Id. at 377 (citations omitted). Although we recognize the distinction
between the lease language in the instant case and the absence of the same
8. J-S49012-15
- 8 -
language in the lease in Girolami, we conclude that the court did not err in
rejecting the Dewings’ claim. It is evident that the Dewings had the right to
seek forfeiture, but they did not prove that Appellees’ action rose to the
necessary level of materiality allowing for the grant of forfeiture by the
court.
Both parties also discuss Linder v. SWEPI, 549 Fed. Appx. 104 (3d
Cir. 2013), a non-precedential decision involving an oil and gas lease
between the Linder Trust and Shell Exploration and Production, LP. Although
we recognize that this Court is not obliged to follow the dictates of the
Linder case, in the absence of Pennsylvania precedential case law on point,
we set forth the following discussion from Linder, which we find persuasive:
As the Trust correctly notes, SWEPI breached its contractual
duty when it belatedly made its delay rental payment following
the expiration of the initial Lease term in September 2010. The
District Court held that this breach was immaterial, however.
The Trust counters that SWEPI’s late payment was material
because the timely payment of delay rental is of the utmost
importance to the lessor-lessee relationship. We disagree. A
brief delay in payment of rent where the contract contains no
“time-is-of-the-essence” provision does not amount to a material
breach. See Gorzelsky v. Leckey, 402 Pa. Super. 246, 586
A.2d 952, 956 (1991). The Trust also cites a clause in the Lease
that gives SWEPI a 60-day cure period before the Trust can sue
for forfeiture of the Lease. The Trust argues that because SWEPI
failed to cure within 60 days, its belated payment was a material
breach. Again, we disagree because this argument alters that
clause's purpose, which is meant to improve the chances of an
out-of-court resolution in the event of a breach by giving SWEPI
a brief grace period to right its wrong. By its terms, the 60-day
cure period relates only to the timeliness of bringing a lawsuit.
It does not establish the materiality of a breach as would a time-
is-of-the-essence clause.
9. J-S49012-15
- 9 -
Id. at 107-08.
Taken together, the case law cited above and by the parties and the
stipulated facts provide a basis upon which to conclude that Appellees’
breach was not material and that abandonment was not proven. Notably,
the parties’ joint stipulation of facts contains the following:
21. The Dewings contend that on or after June 21, 2010, after
the Dewings[’] letter of June 21, 2010 had been sent to the
[Appellees], the Dewings withdrew their consent to Talisman’s
contractors being on their property and requested that
Talisman’s contractors cease all work on the property. While
Talisman stipulates to the withdrawal of consent as set forth in
this paragraph, it does not stipulate to the date of said
withdrawal.
Stipulation of Facts, ¶ 21. Obviously, Appellees’ contractors continued work
on the property until requested by the Dewings to cease. This stipulation
certainly supports a lack of intentional abandonment.
Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court’s determination was not in
error. Therefore, we affirm.
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 9/4/2015