HOUSTON — An oil and gas exploration company engaged in hydraulic fracturing filed for bankruptcy in Texas federal bankruptcy court on April 14, contending that downturns in the oil market eventually made it impossible to “right size” its balance sheet (In re: Jones Energy Inc., No. 19-32112, Ch. 11, S.D. Texas Bkcy.).
DENVER — A federal judge in Colorado on April 16 ruled that a genuine issue of material fact exists in a hydraulic fracturing patent infringement case because the exact role of the fuel sensor that is in dispute is unclear based on expert testimony (Frac Shack Inc. v. Fuel Automation Station LLC, et al., No. 16-2275, D. Colo., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65127).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. Supreme Court on April 29 denied certiorari sought by environmental groups that contended that a lower court erred when it ruled that federal law preempted the review process for the construction of a pipeline that would carry hydraulically fractured gas through several counties in Pennsylvania (Delaware Riverkeeper Network, et al. v. Secretary of Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, et al., No. 18-1106, U.S. Sup.).
WILMINGTON, Del. — A plastics manufacturer on April 24 requested that a Delaware federal court enter a default against the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela and its alleged alter ego, claiming that they have failed to respond to its petition to confirm a $42,342,379.31 international arbitration award (Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Europe v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, et al., No. 18-1963, D. Del.).
LOS ANGELES — A federal judge in California on April 23 refused to reconsider his previous ruling approving a permanent injunction against an offshore hydraulic fracturing practice called well stimulation treatments (WST) until the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) consults with a federal agency and completes a process mandated under federal law (Environmental Defense Center, et al. v. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, et al., No. 16-8418, C.D. Calif.).
BAKERSFIELD, Calif. — The California office of the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) on April 25 released a supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) in which the agency considers opening a combined 1.6 million acres of public lands and federal mineral estate for hydraulic fracturing.
SAN FRANCISCO — Two Native American tribes on April 23 filed a joint brief in the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals contending that a district court is “properly situated to consider mootness” as well as vacatur and, therefore, a lawsuit against the Trump administration concerning the Keystone XL pipeline should be remanded for further consideration (Indigenous Environmental Network, et al. v. U.S. Department of State, et al., No. 18-36068, 9th Cir.).
CHARLESTON, S.C. — Three towns filed an amicus curiae brief in South Carolina federal court on April 23 arguing that seismic air-gun testing used for oil and gas surveys pertaining to potential offshore drilling in the Atlantic Ocean “has known deleterious impacts” on marine wildlife and would damage the local economies of coastal towns (South Carolina Coastal Conservation League, et al. v. Wilbur Ross, No. 18-3326, D. S.C.).
SAN FRANCISCO — The U.S. Government on April 8 filed a brief in the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals arguing that it should remand for dismissal as moot a lawsuit brought by Native American tribes who contend that the construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline would threaten their land and water because it would transport hydraulically fractured oil (Indigenous Environmental Network, et al. v. U.S. Department of State, et al., No. 18-36068, 9th Cir.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Trump administration on April 17 filed a brief in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, contending that President Donald J. Trump had authority under the Antiquities Act to reduce the size of two national monuments because the plain language of the act is “consistent with presidential modification authority” (The Wilderness Society, et al. v. Donald J. Trump, et al., No. 17-2587, Grand Staircase Escalante Partners, et al. v. Donald J. Trump, et al., No. 17-2591, D. D.C.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A pipeline company on April 17 filed a brief in the U.S. Supreme Court arguing that a petition filed by landowners who contend that district courts are not empowered to enter preliminary injunctions giving private companies immediate possession of land before final judgment in condemnation proceedings under the Natural Gas Act (NGA) “has no merit” (Lynda Like, et al. v. Transcontinental Gas Pipeline Company LLC, No. 18-1206, U.S. Sup.).
NEW ORLEANS — The Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on April 17 reversed a federal court’s finding that a site pollution legal liability insurer waived its subrogation rights under an onshore master services agreement (MSA) but affirmed the court’s dismissal of the breach of contract claim against the insurer for lack of personal jurisdiction (Halliburton Energy Services Inc. v. Ironshore Specialty Insurance Co., No. 17-20678 consolidated with No. 18-20239, 5th Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 11255).
HOUSTON — A provider of oil and gas services on April 2 accuses a competitor of patent infringement in a new complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (Schlumberger Technology Corporation v. EnerPol LLC, No. 19-1196, E.D. Texas).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A Native American tribe filed an amicus curiae brief in the District of Columbia Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on April 5 arguing that a lower court’s decision, which held that the federal government’s cancellation of a hydraulic fracturing lease was “arbitrary and capricious,” was incorrect. The Trump administration also filed a brief contending that the lower court’s decision should be reversed (Solenex LLC v. David Bernhardt, et al. No. 18-5345, D.C. Cir.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A group of law professors on March 27 filed a revised amicus curiae brief in the District of Columbia District Court contending that the President Donald J. Trump’s decision to reduce the size of national monuments, which would allow access to land for hydraulic fracturing, was not authorized by the Antiquities Act (Hopi Tribe, et al. v. Donald J. Trump, et al., No. 17-2590; Utah Diné Bikéyah, et al. v. Donald J. Trump, et al., No. 17-2605; and Natural Resources Defense Council, et al. v. Donald J. Trump, et al., No. 17-2606, D. D.C. [consolidated]).
DENVER — A federal judge in Colorado on March 27 ruled that the Trump administration “acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner and violated” federal law by not taking a hard look at the foreseeable indirect effects resulting from the combustion of oil and gas related to hydraulic fracturing well permits on federal land. The judge ordered the government and environmental groups to “confer and attempt in good faith to reach an agreement as to remedies” (Citizens for a Healthy Community v. U.S. Bureau of Land Management, No. 17-2519, D. Colo., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51722).
HARRISBURG, Pa. — A landowner family filed a brief in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court on April 3 contending that it should affirm a lower court’s ruling and not expand the rule of capture pertaining to natural gas located under the family’s property, as desired by a hydraulic fracturing company, because those minerals belong to the family in keeping with “the centuries old concepts of property ownership” (Adam Briggs, et al. v. Southwestern Energy Production Company, No. 63MAP, 2018, Pa. Sup.).
HOUSTON — A group of shareholders on April 1 moved in Texas federal court to consolidate their class action against a hydraulic fracturing company with another case, contending that the actions present “virtually identical factual and legal issues” regarding allegations of securities fraud pertaining to a company acquisition (FNY Partners Fund LP, et al. v. Alta Mesa Resources Inc., et al., No. 19-1027, S.D. Texas).
PITTSBURGH — A federal judge in Pennsylvania on March 31 awarded the attorneys for a hydraulic fracturing company fees totaling $102,979.18 rather than an amount more than six times as much, in a local fracking ordinance dispute in which the company voluntarily reduced its award request because it said it “did not wish to bankrupt” the local municipality involved in the lawsuit (Pennsylvania General Energy Company LLC v. Grant Township, No. 14-209, W.D. Pa.).
FAIRBANKS, Alaska — A federal judge in Alaska on March 29 ruled that an executive order issued by President Donald J. Trump that opened areas of the Outer Continental Shelf off the coast of Alaska for oil and gas drilling is “unlawful” because it exceeded the president’s authority under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) (League of Conservation Voters, et al. v. Donald J. Trump, et al., No. 17-101, D. Alaska).