2008 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 12-2-2008 

# P e nneco P i p eline v

. D ominion P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 07-4246

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no va U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2008 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no va U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it a t ion
" P e nne c o P ipe l ine v

. D ominion " (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 168. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/168N o t P reced en tial UN I TE D S TA TE S C OU RT OF AP PE AL S FO R T HE TH IRD C IRCU IT No. 07- 4246/ 4247 PENNECO PI PELINE CORPORATI ON; LI NETTE SHEARER ARCHER; FR ED C. PU GL IESE ; RAY MO ND R. RE AR ICK; DO RIS R EA RICK , his wife; W I LLI AM S. ROMAN; BEVERLY L. ROMAN, hi s wi fe ; THOMAS E. W EAVER; D O NN A L . WE A V E R , h is w if e; T H E O D O R E RU P E R T ; T WIL A M . RU P E R T , h is w if e; JE AN L . JO H N S T O N ; WIL L IA M H . JO H N S T O N , h er h u sb an d ; ROBERT KELLEY; ALAN K. HI LL; LI NDA V. HI LL, hi s wi fe ; LI SLE R. J OHNS; LU CIND A C . J OH NS , his wife; J OH N L . SPE ER ; J EA N D . SPE ER , his wife; AN DR EWKI MM EL ; ER IN K I MM EL , hi s wi fe ; RO BE RT E. DE EM ER ; RO BE RT H. CA SH DO LL AR ; LIND A L EE CA SH DO LL AR , hi s wi fe ; KE NN ET H J . KI SI EL ; M IC H E L L E L . K IS IE L , h is w if e; C H R IS D . K IM M E L ; JU D IT H M . K IM M E L , h is wi fe ; RO BE RT R. CO LE MAN; LO RE TT A A . CO LE MAN, hi s wi fe ; RO BE RT A. AN DE RS ON , J R. ; KI MB ER LY A. AL EX AN DE R, hi s wi fe ; HA RRY J . DA VI S; FR ED A. MU SS ER , J R., t

ra ding and d oing bu si ness as MU SS ERAS SO CIAT ES ; CUR TIS ANDERSON; ERNEST L. ANDERSON; HELEN A. ANDERSON; HOW ARD B. ANDERSON; ROBERT L. ANDERSON; W I LLI AM J . ANDERSON; MARI E B. CE LL I ER ; J OY CE A. CO LO SM O; TH OM AS P. CO LO SM O; BRAD LE Y L . CRAI G; EL AINE CRAI G; LI SACRAI G; RAND Y M . CRAI G; RO DN EY D. CRAW FO RD ; GREG J . CURRY; BETTY J . DUNMI RE; DAVI D E. DUNMI RE; LOI S J . FARSTER; PA TR I CI A L . HE MK E; DR EWL. KI MM EL ; SAND RA E. KI MM EL ; MA RK T. KI RB Y; VI RG INI A K . KI RB Y; DE NI SE PE NC OL A; J AM ES M. PE NC OL A; DO UG LA S C . CRAI G; CA RO L A . CRAI G, hi s wi fe ; AN I TA FINE ; DANI EL FINE , A p p e l l an t s v. DO MINI ON TRAN SM I SS I ON , INC . ; DO MINI ON EX PL ORAT I ON &

PRODUCTI ON, INC. , aDe l awar e Cor por a t i onHonora ble Paul R. Michel, Chief J udg e for the United States Court of Appe als for the * Fe dera l Circuit, sit ting by desig nation. 2 On Ap peal from

the Unite d S tate s Dis tr ic t Cou rt fo r the We st er

n D is tr ic t of P ennsylvania ( D. C. Nos . 05- c v- 00049 , 05- c v- 00332, 05- c v- 00537) Distri ct Judg e: Ho no ra

ble Don etta

W. Am brose

Subm i tt e d Oc t obe r

27, 2008 B ef o re: M cK ee , N yg aardan d M ich el , C ircu it Ju d g es. * ( Fi l e d De c e m

be r 2, 2008 )

OP INI ON MC KE E, Circ uit Jud ge. Penn ec o P ipel ine Corpo rati on appeal s the distri ct court’ s grant of

Su mm ar y Judgm e nt a ga i ns t i t , and i n favor

of Dom i ni on Tr ans m i s s i on, I nc . , i n thi s di ve r s i ty a c t i on ar is ing f rom a dis pu te ov er

le as ehold inter es ts held by Do m inion u nd er

oil andgas l ea se s w i th P e n n e c o an di t s p r e d e c e s s o r s i n i n t e r e s t . F o r th e r e a s o n s th a t

f o l l o w , w e w i l l a f

f i rm. Inas m uch as we writ e pri m ar il y fo r the part ie s, we need no t r ec it e the rather in v o lv edp ro cedu ral o r h isto rical b ack g ro u n do f th is ap p eal. In an ex cep tio n ally th ro u g h ly an dp ersu asiv e R ep o rt an dR eco mm en d atio n , d atedM ay 2 1 , 2 0 0 7 , M ag istrate Ju d g e L isa P up o L en ih an , ex p lain edth at ev en th o u g h th e co urt w as “n o t u n sy m p ath etic3

to Plai ntiffs’ pli gh t andthe s ee m ingly inequita ble r es ult r ea ched . . .” , “ controll ing law”, and the “ unam

bi guous l angua ge of the DTY l e a s e s , ” “ r e s ul t [e d] i n afi ndi ng i n favor of the Defendants.” Accordingly , s he re comm end that the defend ants ’ m otion f or part ia l Summ ary Judgm e nt

be gr ant e d, and the pl a i nt i ffs ’ m ot i on for part i a l s umm ary

judgm e nt b e d en ied . B y o rd er d atedO cto b er 3 , 2 0 0 7 , th e d istrict co u rt rej ectedth e P lain tif f s’ Obje c t i ons t o the Ma gi s tr a t e Judge ’ s Re port and Re c omm e nda t i on, and e nt e r e d judgm e nt in f av o r o f d ef en d an ts, an dag ain st p lain tif f s as to all claim s. We can addli tt le to the tho ug htfu l analy se s s et fo rth in the Magistrate Judg e’ s Repo rt and R ec omm endati on . Acc ording ly we will affirm

the jud gm ent of the distri ct co u rt ad o p tin g th at R ep o rt an dR eco mm en d atio n , sub stan tially f o r th e reaso n s set f

o rth by the Magis tr at e Jud ge.