Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Energy Law Blogs -> The Energy Law Blog
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
Find a Local Lawyer
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Energy Law
: The Energy Law BlogU.S. Fifth Circuit Finds Contractual Claim Under JOA Not Impermissible "Collateral Attack"
By Robert Theriot
In EOG Resources Inc. v. Chesapeake Energy Corp., No. 09-30362, __ F.3d __ (5th Cir. 4/29/10), the Fifth Circuit reinstated EOG's contractual claim against Chesapeake under the parties' joint operating agreement (JOA). EOG claimed that Chesapeake had unilaterally drilled three wells in the parties' pooled mineral leases in Bossier Parish, Louisiana, without first obtaining EOG's written consent as required by their JOA. The trial court dismissed EOG's claim, finding the contractual claim was barred as an impermissible "collateral attack" on the orders of the Louisiana Commissioner of Conservation, because the Commissioner had approved Chesapeake's application to drill the wells as alternative unit wells for the pooled zones. On appeal, the Fifth Circuit reversed and vacated. It found that EOG's contractual claim was not barred as a collateral attack on the Commissioner's orders and remanded for a determination of EOG's claims. The author represented EOG in the trial court and on appeal.
The Fifth Circuit found that there was no collateral attack on the Commissioner's orders on three grounds: First, EOG was not seeking any relief that was contrary to the orders. The Commissioner's orders approved the well applications, but they did not compel Chesapeake to drill the wells, nor did EOG seek to enjoin the wells from being drilled. Second, EOG did not challenge any of the factual findings of the Commissioner. Third, the Court concluded that only the courts, and not the Commissioner, had the authority to resolve EOG's contractual claims under the JOA or its request for relief through an accounting. In deciding these issues, the Court clarified the line between the Commissioner's authority to impose forced pooling under Louisiana's unitization statute and its lack of authority to modify, limit, or determine contractual rights under a voluntary pooling or operating agreement.
Full post as published by The Energy Law Blog on May 04, 2010 (boomark / email).
Ladder Accident Injury Claims
Were you or a loved one injured in a ladder accident?
Bextra Product Recall
Find a Bextra Lawyer
Bextra Injury Risks
Bextra Increases Risk of Fatal Heart Attack
Specialty Lamp International
Recalls Counterfeit Circuit Breakers
Bank Website Security
New Report Finds Widespread Flaws
AIG Settles Injury Claim
for $18 Million
Failure-to-accommodate claim yields $1.82M award
$1.82 Million Awarded in Employment Lawsuit
Victim of Sexual Attack Awarded $1.4 Million
Victim of Sexual Attack Awarded $1.5 Million
Smokeless Tobacco Increases Risk of Stroke and Heart Attack
Smokeless Tobacco Increases Risk of Stroke and Heart Attack

Party defaulting before district court and enjoined cannot attack registration via cancellation
Eleventh Circuit reverses sentence "impermissible factor"
Plea to a traffic ticket not collateral estoppel in a federal criminal case
Schott v. Schott - No Collateral Attack on Prior "Second Parent" Adoption
Appellate Waiver of Direct/Collateral Review









