From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Penneco v. Dominion

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit
Dec 2, 2008
300 F. App'x 186 (3d Cir. 2008)

Opinion

Nos. 07-4246, 07-4247.

Submitted October 27, 2008.

Filed: December 2, 2008.

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Nos. 05-cv-00049, 05-cv-00332, 05-cv-00537), District Judge: Honorable Donetta W. Ambrose.

Robert W. Lambert, Esq., Bradley J. Martineau, Esq., Lambert Martineau, Indiana, PA, for Appellants.

Stanley Yorsz, Esq., Buchanan Ingersoll Rooney, Kevin C. Abbott, Esq., Nicolle R. Bagnell, Esq., Reed Smith, Pittsburgh, PA, for Appellee.

Before: McKEE, NYGAARD and MICHEL, Circuit Judges.

Honorable Paul R. Michel, Chief Judge for the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, sitting by designation.

OPINION


Penneco Pipeline Corporation appeals the district court's grant of Summary Judgment against it, and in favor of Dominion Transmission, Inc., in this diversity action arising from a dispute over lease-hold interests held by Dominion under oil and gas leases with Penneco and its predecessors in interest. For the reasons that follow, we will affirm.

Inasmuch as we write primarily for the parties, we need not recite the rather involved procedural or historical background of this appeal. In an exceptionally throughly and persuasive Report and Recommendation, dated May 21, 2007, Magistrate Judge Lisa Pupo Lenihan, explained that even though the court was "not unsympathetic to Plaintiffs' plight and the seemingly inequitable result reached . . .", "controlling law", and the "unambiguous language of the DTY leases," "result[ed] in a finding in favor of the Defendants." Accordingly, she recommend that the defendants' motion for partial Summary Judgment be granted, and the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment be denied.

By order dated October 3, 2007, the district court rejected the Plaintiffs' Objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, and entered judgment in favor of defendants, and against plaintiffs as to all claims.

We can add little to the thoughtful analyses set forth in the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. Accordingly we will affirm the judgment of the district court adopting that Report and Recommendation, substantially for the reasons set forth by the Magistrate Judge.


Summaries of

Penneco v. Dominion

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit
Dec 2, 2008
300 F. App'x 186 (3d Cir. 2008)
Case details for

Penneco v. Dominion

Case Details

Full title:PENNECO PIPELINE CORPORATION; Linette Shearer Archer; Fred C. Pugliese…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit

Date published: Dec 2, 2008

Citations

300 F. App'x 186 (3d Cir. 2008)

Citing Cases

Mason v. Range Resources-Appalachia LLC

COL 16. In the Appalachian Basin, it is common for oil and gas leases to contain a savings clause that…