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.

Torts
Declaratory Relief
Trespass

Geothermal Energy & Mineral Corporation v. Magma Land Company I

Published: Feb. 2, 2002 | Result Date: Sep. 10, 2001 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: 91640 Bench Decision –  $0

Judge

Jeffrey B. Jones

Court

Imperial Superior


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Laurie Butler

Robert H. Tourtelot


Defendant

Spencer C. Skeen
(Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart PC)

Stephanie Sontag


Facts

The defendants develop steam and
electricity from hot geothermal brine
located in underground reservoirs in the
Imperial Valley. The process requires
production wells to draw the brine from
the reservoir and injection wells to
return remaining brine to the reservoir
after processing. The plaintiff is a
sublessor with rent and royalty rights in
a 4,800-acre leasehold which is part of
the geothermal development.
The plaintiff sued the defendants,
alleging that it was not getting its share
of the royalties because injection of
processed brine into the subsurface of
the 4,800 acre leasehold cooled the
reservoir making the leasehold less
valuable.
The plaintiff also argued the defendants
placement of production wells on
adjacent lands drained geothermal brine
from the 4,800-acre leasehold, required
defendants to drill compensating off-set
wells on plaintiffÆs adjoining lands.
The plaintiff asserted causes of action
for declaratory relief, trespass, waste
and breach of express and implied
development obligations. It sought $32
million in compensatory damages and
punitive damages.
After a three-week bench trial, the court
awarded a defense verdict in favor of
the developers on all causes of action,
and declared that the developers have
no duty to further develop the leasehold
in question.
The plaintiff received judgment against
defendants on all four causes of action
in the cross-complaint.


#90411

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

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