Dominguez Energy L.P., et al v. Shell Oil Company, et al.
Published: Feb. 12, 1994 | Result Date: Jan. 31, 1994 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |Case number: C736891 – $219,891,000
Judge
Court
L.A. Superior Central West
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Maureen J. Bright
(Bright and Brown)
James S. Bright
(Bright and Brown)
Defendant
Experts
Plaintiff
Daniel Wellman
(technical)
Milton Allen MacLean
(technical)
Linda Yaussi
(technical)
A.M. "Mac" Laurie
(technical)
Garn A. Wallace
(technical)
Charles A. Champion
(technical)
David Gordon
(technical)
Francis Barker
(technical)
Barry L. Evans
(technical)
Glenn R. Stillman
(technical)
Fleet E. Rust
(technical)
Defendant
Michael F. Koehn
(technical)
Forrest A. Garb
(technical)
N. Thomas Sheahan
(technical)
Facts
Two separate cases were consolidated for trial. The Plaintiffs in each case were related entities asserting claims against Shell Oil Company, Shell Western E&P, and 2 former subsidiaries of Shell Oil Company, pertaining to lands in the Los Angeles Basin covered by a 1923 oil and gas lease. Defendants owned 50% of the interest of the lessee under that oil and gas lease and conducted oil field operations on the leased lands for themselves and the other 50% owner from 1923 until that interest was sold in 1983. In one case, Shell Oil Company quitclaimed a 6-acre parcel of the leased lands to the Plaintiff property owner in 1976 after cleaning up its surface facilities. Some years later, the Plaintiff found buried oil field contamination at the 6-acre site and brought suit for breach of the oil and gas lease and continuing trespass to recover the costs for removing the contamination. Plaintiff contended that Shell caused the contamination, covered it over, and left it on the property in violation of the oil and gas lease. Shell contended that such conduct was permitted under the oil and gas lease. In the other case, in 1983, Plaintiff purchased Shell Western E&P's 50% interest in the oil and gas lease and took over oil field operations from Shell Western E&P. Several years later, Plaintiff discovered five separate environmental conditions on the leased lands which allegedly were not apparent at the time of the sale and which Shell Western E&P had allegedly failed to disclose. Plaintiff brought suit for fraud to recover the costs for removing oil field contamination and remediating the five conditions. Plaintiff contended that Defendants caused each of the five conditions and was aware of them, that each condition materially affected the value of the property, that the conditions were hidden or concealed, that the Plaintiff was unaware of them at the time of the sale, that Defendants had a duty to disclose the conditions, and that Defendants failed to do so. Defendants contended that Plaintiff purchased the property "as is" for a discounted price and agreed to assume all further responsibility relative to the property after conducting its own investigations, that Defendants were not aware of any of the five conditions at the time of the sale, that Plaintiff either knew or should have known of the five conditions as a result of its status as the owner of the leased lands and based on the environmental due diligence conducted by Plaintiff, and that Defendants had no intent to defraud Plaintiff.
Settlement Discussions
Plaintiff contends no meaningful settlement discussions occurred.
Damages
$46,881,183 damages reflect the Plaintiffs' estimated costs to clean up and remediate the environmental conditions (which were the subject of the two consolidated lawsuits).
Deliberation
4 days compensatory, 2 days punitive
Poll
11-1
Length
21 days
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390