Donald v. Amoco Production Co., et al.
| Docket Number: | 97-CA-01178-SCT Linked Case(s): 97-CA-01178-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 03-03-2005 Opinion Author: Smith, C.J. Holding: Affirmed in Part; Reversed and Remanded in Part |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Trespass - Contract - Prior mandate - Exhaustion of administrative remedies - Jurisdiction of Oil & Gas Board - Section 17-17-47 - Settlement agreement Judge(s) Concurring: Waller and Cobb, P.JJ., Easley, Carlson, Dickinson and Randolph, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz, J. Dissenting Author : Graves, J. Procedural History: Dismissal Nature of the Case: CIVIL - TORTS-OTHER THAN PERSONAL INJURY & PROPERTY DAMAGE |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 09-09-1997 Appealed from: Wayne County Circuit Court Judge: Larry Eugene Roberts Disposition: Determined that Howard could not assert common law claims of negligence, nuisance, trespass, strict liability, and breach of contract until the available administrative remedies were exhausted before the Mississippi Oil and Gas Board. Case Number: 59755CIV |
|
| Consolidated: Consolidated with 2003-CA-01600-SCT; Stephanie Howard, Executrix of the Estate of Gerald Donald v. TotalFina E&P USA, Inc. (Fina Oil and Chemical Company); Murphy Oil USA, Inc.; ARCO Oil and Gas Company; Atlantic Richfield; Amoco Production Company; Vintage Petroleum, Inc.; Anadarko Petroleum Corporation (Champlin Petroleum Company-Union Pacific Resources); ExxonMobil; ORYX Energy Corporation; Union Oil Company of California; Bass Enterprises Production Company; Occidental Chemical; OXY USA., Inc. (Individually and as Successor in Interest to Cities Service Oil & Gas Corporation); Placid Oil Company; ConocoPhillips; Marathon Oil Company (Individually and as Successor in Interest to TXO Production Corp.); Tenneco Oil Company; Inexco Oil Company; Moon-Hines-Tigrett Operating Company, Inc.; Texaco Inc.; Four Star Oil and Gas Company (as Successor to Getty Oil Company); Chevron U.S.A., Inc.; Chevron Corporation; Shell Western Exploration & Production, Inc.; and Conquest Exploration Company | ||
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Gerald Donald |
JOHN W. BOLING
MICHAEL G. STAG
STUART H. SMITH |
||
| Appellee: | Amoco Production Company, Atlantic Richfield Company, Bass Enterprises Production Company, Champlin Petroleum Company, Chevron Corporation, Chevron U.S.A., Inc., Coho Resources, Inc., Conoco, Inc., Conquest Exploration Company, Exxon Corporation, Fina Oil and Chemical Company, Four Star Oil & Gas Company, Inexco Oil Company, Moon-Hines-Tigrett Operating Company, Inc., Mobil Oil Exploration & Producing Southeast, Inc., Murphy Oil USA, Inc., Oryx Energy Company, Oxy USA, Inc., Phillips Petroleum Company, Placid Oil Company, Shell Western E & P, Inc., Tenneco Oil Company, Texaco, Inc., Union Oil Company of California, and Vintage Petroleum, Inc. | BENJAMIN ZACHARY WISE JULIE E. CHAFFIN JESSE LEE HOWELL STEVEN CRAIG PANTER JEFFERY P. REYNOLDS DAVID L. MARTINDALE NORMAN GENE HORTMAN, JR. C. GLEN BUSH THOMAS R. HUDSON MARK A. NELSON THOMAS C. ANDERSON |
|
|
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Trespass - Contract - Prior mandate - Exhaustion of administrative remedies - Jurisdiction of Oil & Gas Board - Section 17-17-47 - Settlement agreement |
| Summary of the Facts: | The owner of certain property, Gerald Donald, died, and the property was inherited by his daughter and sole heir, Stephanie Howard. The underlying lawsuit alleged that Fina Oil & Chemical Company, et al., were responsible for the toxic waste that was dumped on Donald’s property. The case was dismissed and on appeal, the Supreme Court reversed the dismissal in part and remanded for further proceedings. Following remand, the circuit court ordered Fina Group to produce documents and other information relevant to their involvement in the hazardous waste site at issue. The parties conducted mediation and, according to Howard, reached an agreement on the terms of the settlement. Before the alleged agreement could be formalized, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Smith, 844 So. 2d 1145 (Miss. 2003), which required the exhaustion of administrative remedies before filing suit in a case concerning groundwater damages at an oil field site. Based on that decision, the Fina Group filed another motion to dismiss. Howard filed a motion to enforce the alleged settlement agreement. The court dismissed the case, and Howard appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Mandate Howard argues that in the first case, the Supreme Court, in addition to reversing a prior judgment of dismissal, stated her claims were actionable. However, the Court did not state that Howard’s claims were actionable, but simply inferred that the claims were facially sufficient enough to survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. While the dismissal of Howard’s claims was erroneous, the judge’s basis for dismissal was not due to a disregard of the Supreme Court’s mandate, but instead, an error in misinterpreting Chevron. Issue 2: Exhaustion of administrative remedies Howard argues that since the Mississippi Oil and Gas Board lacks jurisdiction over the claims she raised, she is not required to exhaust potential administrative remedies before filing suit. In Chevron, oil and gas exploration activities took place on the site at issue pursuant to a mineral lease. In this case, no oil and gas drilling or production took place on the Donald property, and there was no mineral lease at issue either. Since the Donald property was used as a “dump site” and there was no oil and gas exploration and production, the Board does not have jurisdiction. In addition, the Board’s authority does not extend to the regulation of commercial disposal of waste products, like the waste dumped onto the Donald property. According to section 17-17-47, it is the Commission on Environmental Quality that has exclusive authority to regulate commercial disposal of oil field exploration and production of waste products. Therefore, the holding of Chevron v. Smith is inapplicable in this case. Although generally, a complainant must exhaust the administrative remedies available to him before resorting to the courts for resolution, if an adequate administrative remedy is not provided, then the doctrine of exhaustion is not applicable. Since the remaining claims in this case –negligence, nuisance, trespass, breach of contract, strict liability, and outrageous conduct– do not specifically relate to an administrative remedy, they were improperly dismissed. Issue 3: Settlement agreement Howard argues that the judge erred by failing to enforce the settlement agreement. Mississippi law requires that the party claiming benefit from the settlement prove by a preponderance of the evidence that there was a meeting of the minds. In this case, there was no meeting of the minds between Howard and the Fina Group. The language of correspondence between the two is indicative of a proposed settlement that provides a conceptual framework for the Fina Group and Howard to further negotiate in an attempt to reach a firm settlement. Therefore, the judge did not abuse his discretion by denying Howard’s motion to enforce a settlement agreement. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
