2008 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

12-2-2008

Penneco Pipeline v. Dominion

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 07-4246

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2008 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Penneco Pipeline v. Dominion" (2008). 2008 Decisions. Paper 168.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008/168
 Not Precedential

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

 

No. 07-4246/4247

 

PENNECO PIPELINE CORPORATION; LINETTE SHEARER ARCHER;

FRED C. PUGLIESE; RAYMOND R. REARICK; DORIS REARICK, his wife;

WILLIAM S. ROMAN; BEVERLY L. ROMAN, his wife; THOMAS E. WEAVER;

DONNA L. WEAVER, his wife; THEODORE RUPERT; TWILA M. RUPERT, his

wife; JEAN L. JOHNSTON; WILLIAM H. JOHNSTON, her husband; 

ROBERT KELLEY; ALAN K. HILL; LINDA V. HILL, his wife; LISLE R. JOHNS;

LUCINDA C. JOHNS, his wife; JOHN L. SPEER; JEAN D. SPEER, his wife;

ANDREW KIMMEL; ERIN KIMMEL, his wife; ROBERT E. DEEMER; ROBERT H.

CASHDOLLAR; LINDA LEE CASHDOLLAR, his wife; KENNETH J. KISIEL;

MICHELLE L. KISIEL, his wife; CHRIS D. KIMMEL; JUDITH M. KIMMEL, his

wife; ROBERT R. COLEMAN; LORETTA A. COLEMAN, his wife; ROBERT A.

ANDERSON, JR.; KIMBERLY A. ALEXANDER, his wife; HARRY J. DAVIS; FRED

A. MUSSER, JR., trading and doing business as MUSSER ASSOCIATES; CURTIS

ANDERSON; ERNEST L. ANDERSON; HELEN A. ANDERSON; HOWARD B.

ANDERSON; ROBERT L. ANDERSON; WILLIAM J. ANDERSON; MARIE B.

CELLIER; JOYCE A. COLOSMO; THOMAS P. COLOSMO; BRADLEY L. CRAIG;

ELAINE CRAIG; LISA CRAIG; RANDY M. CRAIG; RODNEY D. CRAWFORD;

GREG J. CURRY; BETTY J. DUNMIRE; DAVID E. DUNMIRE; LOIS J. FARSTER;

PATRICIA L. HEMKE; DREW L. KIMMEL; SANDRA E. KIMMEL; MARK T.

KIRBY; VIRGINIA K. KIRBY; DENISE PENCOLA; JAMES M. PENCOLA;

DOUGLAS C. CRAIG; CAROL A. CRAIG, his wife; ANITA FINE; DANIEL FINE,

Appellants

v.

DOMINION TRANSMISSION, INC.; DOMINION EXPLORATION &

PRODUCTION, INC., a Delaware Corporation
Honorable Paul R. Michel, Chief Judge for the United States Court of Appeals for the *

Federal Circuit, sitting by designation.

2

 

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

 

Submitted October 27, 2008

Before: McKee , Nygaard and Michel, Circuit Judges.*

(Filed December 2, 2008)

 

OPINION

 

MCKEE, Circuit Judge.

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 leasehold 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
3

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.