LA Case Strikes Down Class Action Relief for Royalty Underpayment - GoHaynesvilleShale.com2024-03-28T16:16:36Zhttps://gohaynesvilleshale.com/forum/topics/la-case-strikes-down-class-action-relief-for-royalty-underpayment?commentId=2117179%3AComment%3A2065877&x=1&feed=yes&xn_auth=noI find the following of some…tag:gohaynesvilleshale.com,2011-08-27:2117179:Comment:20658772011-08-27T14:34:04.708ZKat Bloomfieldhttps://gohaynesvilleshale.com/profile/Caliente
<p>I find the following of some interest, maybe hope, were the class filed in state (Louisiana) court; (but note, these O&G have intentionally "diversified" their citizenship from its landowners, making diversity jurisdiction in federal court more the norm). Anyway, I digress. The posted memorandum ruling relies heavily on Chevron USA, Inc. v. Vermillion Parish School Board, <a>128 F.Supp.2d 961</a>, 965 (W.D.La. 2001), aff'd, <a>377 F.3d 459</a> (5th Cir. 2004). There, the federal court…</p>
<p>I find the following of some interest, maybe hope, were the class filed in state (Louisiana) court; (but note, these O&G have intentionally "diversified" their citizenship from its landowners, making diversity jurisdiction in federal court more the norm). Anyway, I digress. The posted memorandum ruling relies heavily on Chevron USA, Inc. v. Vermillion Parish School Board, <a>128 F.Supp.2d 961</a>, 965 (W.D.La. 2001), aff'd, <a>377 F.3d 459</a> (5th Cir. 2004). There, the federal court certified the "notice" question to the Louisiana Supreme Court, which ultimately refused to answer the question of whether the notice made on behalf of a certain landowner and "similarly situated landowners" was sufficient under Section 137. That the Louisiana supremes did NOT answer the question, left it to the federal court to design its own answer. That we now know from the Chevron case. The federal court read in an "individualized" requirement into Section 137 (which I find interesting, because elsewhere throughout actual federal law cases involving "notice," individualization is NOT necessary, even in some due process (constitutional) cases)). But, that's federal decision. Federal courts are not the ultimate interpreter of state law. The issue remains open in Louisiana as far as I can tell.</p>
<p>That said, either get the class in state court OR get the names of the landowners and name each and every one. Lots of up front work, but not undoable. Indeed, the advent of the internet, social networking, and online databases certainly would help the savvy get the "individualization" the fed courts so love on behalf of O&G</p> Since unit production payment…tag:gohaynesvilleshale.com,2011-08-27:2117179:Comment:20658672011-08-27T14:27:23.796ZKat Bloomfieldhttps://gohaynesvilleshale.com/profile/Caliente
Since unit production payments are "computerized," what's happening to one is happening to the other. Someone's gonna get ahold of that software and reveal its built in cost deducts which are nowhere else explained or even explicable.
Since unit production payments are "computerized," what's happening to one is happening to the other. Someone's gonna get ahold of that software and reveal its built in cost deducts which are nowhere else explained or even explicable. the "class" issue was notice.…tag:gohaynesvilleshale.com,2011-08-27:2117179:Comment:20658662011-08-27T14:25:56.296ZKat Bloomfieldhttps://gohaynesvilleshale.com/profile/Caliente
<p>the "class" issue was notice. The court read into the mineral code an "indiviidualized" notice requirement under Section 137 (THE provision that EVERY landowner must know by heart and follow when dealing with underpayment or non payment of royalties).</p>
<p>Notice, as otherwise almost universally defined in the law, is that which gets you notice! A letter written on behalf of unnamed yet similarly situated landowners, IMHO, does just that. But, now we have the judicial gloss of…</p>
<p>the "class" issue was notice. The court read into the mineral code an "indiviidualized" notice requirement under Section 137 (THE provision that EVERY landowner must know by heart and follow when dealing with underpayment or non payment of royalties).</p>
<p>Notice, as otherwise almost universally defined in the law, is that which gets you notice! A letter written on behalf of unnamed yet similarly situated landowners, IMHO, does just that. But, now we have the judicial gloss of "individualized" notice. So EACH landowner who's been shorted has to be identified in the "notice" (i.e., demand letter under Section 137). That deals with the "notice" problem.</p>
<p>But, now we also have CAFA, the class action fairness act. Inappropriately named, it does add roadblocks to class actions which have to be lept to get to the class status. A BIG problem with "class actions" is the quantum of time/litigation/money spent litigating the viability of the class. it's not insurmountable. It's just what it is </p> It never ceases to amaze me t…tag:gohaynesvilleshale.com,2011-08-27:2117179:Comment:20658632011-08-27T14:22:37.679ZKat Bloomfieldhttps://gohaynesvilleshale.com/profile/Caliente
It never ceases to amaze me the judicially sanctioned punting on "NOTICE." Why is it oil and gas companies deserve more NOTICE than is even required under due process? Really?
It never ceases to amaze me the judicially sanctioned punting on "NOTICE." Why is it oil and gas companies deserve more NOTICE than is even required under due process? Really? Outrageous.tag:gohaynesvilleshale.com,2011-08-21:2117179:Comment:20556632011-08-21T01:54:34.061ZBaconhttps://gohaynesvilleshale.com/profile/Bacon
Outrageous.
Outrageous. No reason that could not work…tag:gohaynesvilleshale.com,2011-08-19:2117179:Comment:20535492011-08-19T16:11:25.224ZBen Elmorehttps://gohaynesvilleshale.com/profile/BenElmore
No reason that could not work as I see it.
No reason that could not work as I see it. Sorry just replying. Been ti…tag:gohaynesvilleshale.com,2011-08-19:2117179:Comment:20535442011-08-19T16:06:55.190ZBen Elmorehttps://gohaynesvilleshale.com/profile/BenElmore
Sorry just replying. Been tied up. No movement that I know of. Just preliminary motion practice.
Sorry just replying. Been tied up. No movement that I know of. Just preliminary motion practice. Back to my proposal...
What I…tag:gohaynesvilleshale.com,2011-08-19:2117179:Comment:20532902011-08-19T14:14:54.243ZHenryhttps://gohaynesvilleshale.com/profile/Henry48
<p>Back to my proposal...</p>
<p>What I was proposing (I think) is this: Some large number of people band together. They are not trying to form a class for a class action suit. Rather, they are simply trying to get what they think is rightfully theirs. They collectively engage an attorney (either via payments or a contingency fee) to represent them. The attorney writes a single demand letter. In that letter, he lists the names of the people whom he is representing, and outlines the…</p>
<p>Back to my proposal...</p>
<p>What I was proposing (I think) is this: Some large number of people band together. They are not trying to form a class for a class action suit. Rather, they are simply trying to get what they think is rightfully theirs. They collectively engage an attorney (either via payments or a contingency fee) to represent them. The attorney writes a single demand letter. In that letter, he lists the names of the people whom he is representing, and outlines the complaint and proposed remedy. Subsequently, when the suit is filed, it is filed on behalf of only these plaintiffs. There would be no intent on the part of the plaintiffs to form a class, or look for others to join in.</p> Very true,
Personally, I wo…tag:gohaynesvilleshale.com,2011-08-18:2117179:Comment:20520282011-08-18T18:20:12.786ZThe_Baronhttps://gohaynesvilleshale.com/profile/The_Baron
<p>Very true,</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Personally, I would think thiswould still boil down to an individual contract being breeched, with the responsibility being between the two contract participants.</p>
<p>Very true,</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Personally, I would think thiswould still boil down to an individual contract being breeched, with the responsibility being between the two contract participants.</p> So the class would roughly be…tag:gohaynesvilleshale.com,2011-08-18:2117179:Comment:20516712011-08-18T15:29:40.394ZHBPhttps://gohaynesvilleshale.com/profile/HBP
<p>So the class would roughly be defined as all owners having an interest in a __________, known as the __________________servitude, being created by _________________, and being leased by _____________, dated__________. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>Maybe. But of course, you have to get all the 137 notices uniform and to the operator in a way where they would hopefully form letter response the same to each. All things being equal after the response, I would think you have a few options at that…</p>
<p>So the class would roughly be defined as all owners having an interest in a __________, known as the __________________servitude, being created by _________________, and being leased by _____________, dated__________. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>Maybe. But of course, you have to get all the 137 notices uniform and to the operator in a way where they would hopefully form letter response the same to each. All things being equal after the response, I would think you have a few options at that point.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I guess a good question would be whether a "class action" that is limited to only those that make proper 137 demand is going to provide any more relief in LA than would a large combined case. Both would show a systematic issue, but I would think you would still need some facts showing intentional purpose for the non-proper payment to get additional recovery beyond atty fees, interest and double recovery set out in the code.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Ben, do you know the status of that Coffey case that the Barnett Shale folks filed against CHK in Oklahoma? Any movement on that?</p>