United States: The Emerging Litigation Strategy Of Environmental Organizations Seeking To Curtail Shale Oil And Gas Development by Margaret A. Hill and Mary Ann Mullaney, Blank Rome LLP, November 21, 2012, Mondaq
The article references that “Mitchell v. Encana Oil & Gas (USA), Inc., et al., No. 10-cv-02555 (N.D. Tex. Dec. 15, 2010)” was “resolved through private party settlement.”
Opponents of hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling activities initially pursued litigation as one might have anticipated. The suits filed first involved allegations of groundwater contamination and toxic tort injury. Typically, common law claims, such as those for nuisance, trespass, negligence, and strict liability, were asserted in those early suits. Occasionally, environmental statutory claims, such as under the federal Air Pollution Prevention and Control Act (the “Clean Air Act”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 7401 to 7671q, surfaced as well. See, e.g., Citizens for Pennsylvania’s Future v. Ultra Resources, Inc., No. 11-cv-1360, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 136494 (M.D. Pa. Sept. 24, 2012). Some of these cases were resolved through private party settlements, see, e.g., Mitchell v. Encana Oil & Gas (USA), Inc., et al., No. 10-cv-02555 (N.D. Tex. Dec. 15, 2010); others were dismissed (with and without prejudice) because of plaintiffs’ failure to demonstrate a causal link between the alleged injuries on the one hand and hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling activities on the other, see, e.g., Strudley v. Antero Resources Corp., et al., No. 11-cv-2218 (Dist. Ct., Denver, CO, May 9, 2012). [Emphasis added]
[After posting this article, Blank Rome contacted Ernst v Encana and requested that the headline linked to Mondaq be delinked. The article at Mondaq is accessible by here: http://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/x/207774/Oil+Gas+Electricity/The+Emerging+Litigation+Strategy+Of+Environmental+Organizations+Seeking+To+Curtail+Shale+Oil+And+Gas+Development ]