This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Business Law
Misrepresentation

Geo Guidance Drilling Services Inc. v. Renaissance Resources LLC

Published: Oct. 27, 2023 | Result Date: Jul. 7, 2023 | Filing Date: Mar. 31, 2020 |

Case number: 1:20-cv-00465-CDB Settlement –  $698,956

Judge

Christopher D. Baker

Court

USDC Eastern District of California


Attorneys

Plaintiff

James R. Harvey
(Clifford & Brown)

Daniel Raytis
(Belden Blaine Raytis, LLP)

Daniel M. Root
(Belden, Blaine & Raytis LLP)


Defendant

Peter J. Burfening Jr.
(Wood Smith Henning & Berman, LLP )


Facts

On March 31, 2020, Geo Guidance Drilling Services, Inc., a California corporation that provides full-service directional drilling services within the petroleum, industry, filed suit against Renaissance Resources LLC, a Wyoming limited liability company.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: The plaintiff contended that it was retained by a third party to provide services for an upcoming drilling project in Colorado; that, based on advertisements the defendant had directed at the plaintiff, the plaintiff contracted with the defendant to provide substantially knowledgeable, skilled, and experienced measuring while drilling (MWD) engineers and operators to perform MWD services for the project; that the agreement provided the defendant would fully provide and manage its engineers and maintain liability insurance; that the defendant represented it was assigning such engineers to the project; and that, in reality, the defendant assigned three engineers that lacked the necessary skill, experience, and qualifications for the Colorado project. The plaintiff contended that the project was drilled over 1000 feet off course because of the defendant's engineers; that it had incurred expenses of over $1 million stemming from the defendant's actions. The plaintiff contended the defendant was liable for negligent misrepresentation; intentional misrepresentation; breach of fiduciary duty; negligence; and breach of oral contract.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: The defendant denied any wrongdoing or liability and all the plaintiff's material allegations.

Result

The parties reached a settlement agreement, and a consent judgment in the amount of $698,956.92 was entered in favor of the plaintiff.


#141739

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390