Court Opinion

ID: 9372747
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-22 15:07:19.555896+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:37.057840
License: Public Domain

[Cite as Tera, L.L.C. v. Rice Drilling D, L.L.C., 2023-Ohio-427.]

             IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
                              SEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                   BELMONT COUNTY

                                                TERA, LLC,

                                           Plaintiff-Appellee,

                                                       v.

                                RICE DRILLING D, LLC ET AL.,

                                       Defendants-Appellants.

                         OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY
                                          Case No. 21 BE 0047

                                    Application for Reconsideration

                                             BEFORE:
                            David A. D’Apolito, Carol Ann Robb, Judges.

                                                JUDGMENT:
                                                  Denied.

 Atty. Charles H. Bean, Thornburg & Bean, 113 West Main Street, P.O. Box 96, St.
 Clairsville, Ohio 43950, Atty. Elizabeth L. Glick, Law Office of Elizabeth L. Glick, P.O.
 Box 191, St. Clairsville, Ohio 43950, Atty. Richard A. Myser, Myser & Davies, 320
 Howard Street, Bridgeport, Ohio 43912, and Atty. Craig J. Wilson, C.J. Wilson Law,
 LLC, 2606 Hilliard Rome Road, PMB 3007, Hilliard, Ohio 43026, for Plaintiff-Appellee
 and

 Atty. John Kevin West, and Atty. John C. Ferrell, Steptoe & Johnson PLLC, 41 South
 High Street, Suite 2200, Columbus, Ohio 43215, and Atty. Melanie M. Norris, Steptoe
 & Johnson PLLC, 1324 Chapline Street, Suite 100, P.O. Box 751, Wheeling, West
 Virginia 26003, for Defendants-Appellants Rice Drilling D, LLC and Gulfport Energy
 Corporation and

 Atty. Anna G. Rotman, and Atty. Kenneth A. Young, Kirkland & Ellis, LLP, 609 Main,
 Suite 4600, Houston, Texas 77002, for Defendant-Appellant Rice Drilling D, LLC.
                                                                                         –2–

                                  Dated: February 7, 2023

PER CURIAM.

       {¶1}   On January 30, 2023, Appellants, Rice Drilling D, LLC and Gulfport Energy
Corporation, filed an application pursuant to App. R. 26(B) seeking reconsideration of our
opinion and judgment entry in Tera, LLC v. Rice Drilling D, LLC, 7th Dist. Belmont No. 21
BE 0047, 2023-Ohio-273 (J. Robb, dissenting).
       {¶2}   In the January 18, 2023 opinion and judgment entry, the majority of the
panel affirmed the decision of the trial court entering summary judgment in favor of
Appellee, Tera, LLC, on its bad faith trespass and conversion claims, based on the
conclusion that the unambiguous language of the oil and gas leases at issue did not
include drilling rights to the Point Pleasant. Judge Robb, on the other hand, concluded
the opposite, that the unambiguous language of the leases includes drilling rights to the
Point Pleasant. In addition to affirming the decision of the trial court on the merits, the
majority affirmed the jury’s verdict awarding damages to Tera, with the exception of
damages awarded when Tera was not the owner of the subject properties, and remanded
the matter for retrial on the single issue of compensatory damages.
       {¶3}   Reconsideration “provides a mechanism by which a party may prevent
miscarriages of justice that could arise when an appellate court makes an obvious error
or renders an unsupportable decision under the law.” Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v.
Knox, 7th Dist. Belmont No. 09-BE-4, 2011-Ohio-421, ¶ 2. “When presented with an
application for reconsideration * * *, an appellate court must determine whether the
application calls to the court’s attention an obvious error in its decision or raises an issue
for consideration that was either not considered at all or was not fully considered by the
court when it should have been.” Norman v. Kellie Auto Sales, Inc., 2020-Ohio-6953, 165
N.E.3d 805, ¶ 7 (10th Dist.), aff'd, 167 Ohio St.3d 151, 2022-Ohio-1198, 189 N.E.3d 784.
“A panel could conceivably make any number of obvious errors justifying reconsideration
including a factual error, a procedural error, or an error of law.” Id. at ¶ 11.
       {¶4}   The lion’s share of the seventeen-pages of argument in Appellants’
application for reconsideration revisits the legal analysis of the majority and the dissent,
and, not surprisingly, advocates for the conclusion reached by the dissent. However,

Case No. 21 BE 0047
                                                                                      –3–

mere disagreement with the majority’s logic and conclusions does not support an
application for reconsideration. Hampton v. Ahmed, 7th Dist. Belmont No. 02 BE 66,
2005-Ohio-1766, ¶ 16 (“An application for reconsideration may not be filed simply on the
basis that a party disagrees with the prior appellate court decision.”)
       {¶5}   As our decision followed voluminous briefing (by both the parties and amici),
thorough advocacy at oral argument, and thoughtful consideration and rigorous debate
by the panel over the numerous issues presented in this appeal, the application for
reconsideration is denied.

JUDGE DAVID A. D’APOLITO

JUDGE CAROL ANN ROBB

                                 NOTICE TO COUNSEL

This document constitutes a final judgment entry.

Case No. 21 BE 0047