Corpus: 543,223 opinions ·
3,177 judges ·
newest 2026-06-23 · expanding
Coverage ↗
Opinion
govinfo:USCOURTS-wvnd-1_17-cv-00088-6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
JACKLIN ROMEO,
Individually and on behalf
of others similarly situated;
SUSAN S. RINE,
Individually and on behalf
of others similarly situated;
DEBRA SNYDER MILLER,
Individually and on behalf
of others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:17CV88
(Judge Keeley)
ANTERO RESOURCES CORP.,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STAY [DKT. NO. 368]
In this breach of contract class action, the plaintiffs,
Jacklin Romeo (“Romeo”), Susan S. Rine (“Rine”), and Debra Snyder
Miller (“Miller”) (collectively, “the Plaintiffs”), individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated, allege that the
defendant, Antero Resources Corporation (“Antero”), breached its
obligations under the royalty provisions of two types of lease
agreements by improperly deducting post-production costs and
failing to pay royalties based upon the price received at the point
of sale. On June 18, 2021, Antero moved to stay this action pending
final resolution of its appeal in Corder v. Antero Resources Corp.,
1:18CV30 (Lead Case). After hearing oral argument on July 7, 2021,
Case 1:17-cv-00088-TSK Document 376 Filed 07/12/21 Page 1 of 12 PageID #:
<pageID>
ROMEO, ET. AL V. ANTERO 1:17CV88
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STAY [DKT. NO. 368]
2
and for the reasons discussed below, the Court GRANTED Antero’s
motion (Dkt. No. 368) and STAYED this case.
I. BACKGROUND
A. Factual Background
Each of the Plaintiffs alleges ownership of an oil and gas
interest in Harrison County, West Virginia, subject to an existing
oil and gas lease under which the lessee’s interest has been
assigned to Antero (Dkt. No. 31 at 2).
Romeo is the assignee of a portion of the lessors’ interest
under a March 14, 1984 lease agreement between lessors Jessie J.
Nixon, Betty Nixon, Mary Alice Vincent, and Hubert L. Vincent, and
lessee Clarence W. Mutschelknaus (“the Mutschelknaus Lease”). Id.
at 6. Antero acquired the lessee’s rights and obligations sometime
prior to January 1, 2009. The royalty provision of the
Mutschelknaus Lease contains the following language:
In consideration of the premi ses, the said [Lessee]
covenants and agrees: First, to deliver monthly to the
credit of the Lessors, their heirs or assigns, free of
costs, in a pipeline, to which Lessee may connect its
wells, Lessors’ proportionate share of the equal one-
eighth (1/8) part of all oil produced and saved from the
leased premises; and second, to pay monthly Lessor’s
proportionate share of the one-eighth (1/8) of the value
at the well of the gas from each and every gas well
drilled on said premises, the product from which is
marketed and used off the premises, said gas to be
measured at a meter set on the farm, and to pay monthly
Lessors’ proportionate share of the one-eighth (1/8) of
the net value at the factory of the gasoline and other
gasoline products manufactured from casinghead gas.
Case 1:17-cv-00088-TSK Document 376 Filed 07/12/21 Page 2 of 12 PageID #:
<pageID>
ROMEO, ET. AL V. ANTERO 1:17CV88
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STAY [DKT. NO. 368]
3
Id.
Rine and Miller are assignees of portions of the lessors’
interest under an October 19, 1979 lease between lessors Lee H.
Snyder, and Olive W. Snyder, and lessee Robert L. Matthey, Jr.
(“the Matthey Lease”). Id. at 6-7. Antero was assigned the lessee’s
interest sometime prior to July 17, 2012. Id. at 7-8. The royalty
provision of the Matthey Lease contains the following language:
(a) Lessee covenants and agrees to deliver to the
credit of the Lessor, his heirs or assigns, free of cost,
in the pipe line to which said Lessee may connect its
wells, a royalty of one-eighth (1/8) of native oil
produced and saved from the leased premises.
(b) Lessee covenants and agrees to pay Lessor as
royalty for the native gas from each and every well
drilled on said premises producing native gas, an amount
equal to one-eighth (1/8) of the gross proceeds received
from the sale of the same at the prevailing price for
gas sold at the well, for all native gas saved and
marketed from the said premises, payable quarterly.
Id. at 8-9.
On May 15, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed a class action complaint
asserting a breach of contract claim related to Antero’s alleged
failure to pay them a full 1/8th royalty payment for their natural
gas interests. Gas produced under the leases at issue (the “Class
Leases”) consists of “wet gas” (saturated with liquid hydrocarbons
and water) that may be processed to obtain marketable “residue
gas.” This wet gas also contains valuable liquid hydrocarbon
Case 1:17-cv-00088-TSK Document 376 Filed 07/12/21 Page 3 of 12 PageID #:
<pageID>
ROMEO, ET. AL V. ANTERO 1:17CV88
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STAY [DKT. NO. 368]
4
components (ethane, butane, isobutane, propane, and natural gas)
(“NGLs”) that may be extracted and fractionated prior to sale.
The Plaintiffs contend that because neither of the Class
Leases royalty provisions expressly permits such deductions West
Virginia law imposes a duty upon Antero to calculate royalties
based on the price it receives from third parties for the residue
gas and NGLs, without deductions. They assert that despite this
duty Antero has deducted various post-production costs for residue
gas and NGLs from their royalty payments.
B. Procedural History
On March 23, 2020, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23(b)(3), the Court entered a Class Certification Order, which
defined the following Class:
Persons and entities, including their respective
successors and assigns, to whom Antero has paid
royalties (“Royalties”) on Natural Gas, including
natural gas liquids, produced by Antero from wells
located in West Virginia at any time since January 1,
2009, pursuant to Leases which contain either of the
following gas royalty provisions: (a) [Lessee] covenants
and agrees “to pay monthly Lessors’ proportionate share
of the one-eighth (1/8) of the value at the well of the
gas from each and every gas well drilled on said
premises, the product from which is marketed and used
off the premises, said gas to be measured at a meter set
on the farm”; or (b) “Lessee covenants and agrees to pay
Lessor as royalty for the native gas from each and every
well drilled on said premised producing native gas, as
amount equal to one-eighth (1/8) of the gross proceeds
received from the sale of the same at the prevailing
price for gas sold at the well, for all native gas saved
and marketed from the said premises, payable quarterly.”
Case 1:17-cv-00088-TSK Document 376 Filed 07/12/21 Page 4 of 12 PageID #:
<pageID>
ROMEO, ET. AL V. ANTERO 1:17CV88
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STAY [DKT. NO. 368]
5
The Class excludes: (1) agencies, departments, or
instrumentalities of the United State of America; (2)
publicly traded oil and gas exploration companies; (3)
any person who is or has been a working interest owner
in a well produced by Antero in West Virginia; and (4)
Antero.
(Dkt. No. 152 at 42-43). The Court also identified four common
questions of law and fact:
1) Do Wellman and Tawney apply to both market value
and proceed leases?
2) If so, do the leases at issue, as modified by any
subsequent modifications (if any), have the
specific language required by Wellman and Tawney
that would allow Antero to deduct post-production
expenses from the Plaintiffs’ royalty payments?
3) If not, did Antero unlawfully deduct postproduction
expenses from the Plaintiffs’ royalty payments?
4) If so, how did Antero calculate these deductions?
Id. at 32. The Fourth Circuit denied Antero’s interlocutory appeal
of the Court’s Class Certification Order on April 15, 2020 and
this Court denied Antero’s motion to amend the Order on May 11,
2020 (Dkt. Nos. 171; 176; 195).
On February 12, 2021, the parties filed cross motions for
summary judgment on the Plaintiffs’ breach of contract claim and
the Plaintiffs moved for summary judgment on each of Antero’s
eighteen (18) affirmative defenses (Dkt. Nos. 353, 354, 355). These
motions are fully briefed and pending disposition.
Case 1:17-cv-00088-TSK Document 376 Filed 07/12/21 Page 5 of 12 PageID #:
<pageID>
ROMEO, ET. AL V. ANTERO 1:17CV88
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STAY [DKT. NO. 368]
6
II. DISCUSSION
On June 18, 2021, Antero moved to stay this action pending
final resolution of its appeal in Corder, arguing that the outcome
of that appeal will impact this litigation (Dkt. No. 368).
According to Antero, the Class Lease royalty provisions in this
case are identical to several of the royalty provisions at issue
in Corder and, to the extent that those Class Leases that have
been modified to include a market enhancement clause are properly
before the Court, that market enhancement clause is identical to
the one at issue in Corder. The Plaintiffs oppose Antero’s motion
to stay, arguing that Antero “seek[s] to stay this litigation for
the sole purpose of delaying the [Plaintiffs’] recovery of
substantial monetary judgment against Antero” (Dkt. No. 370 at 4).
In Corder, the plaintiffs alleged that Antero had improperly
deducted post-production costs from r oyalty payments due them
under several oil and gas leases. In a Memorandum Opinion and Order
entered on May 12, 2021, the Court granted in part the plaintiffs’
Motion for Summary Judgment and denied Antero’s Motion for Summary
Judgment (Civil Action No. 1:18CV30, Dkt. No. 242). Specifically,
the Court held that the market value leases were governed by and
failed to satisfy the heightened specificity requirements
established in Wellman v. Energy Resources, 557 S.E.2d 254 (W. Va.
2001), and Tawney v. Columbia Natural Resources, 633 S.E.2d 22 (W.
Case 1:17-cv-00088-TSK Document 376 Filed 07/12/21 Page 6 of 12 PageID #:
<pageID>
ROMEO, ET. AL V. ANTERO 1:17CV88
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STAY [DKT. NO. 368]
7
Va. 2006). Id. at 30–31. The Court further held that the market
enhancement clause in Corder was ambiguous and failed to satisfy
Tawney’s second prong because it did not identify with
particularity the costs that Antero may deduct from certain
plaintiffs’ royalty payments. Id. at 17–23.
A. Applicable Law
A motion to stay is committed to the sound discretion of the
district court. Gisper v. Simplicity, Inc., 2011 WL 128776, at *3
(N.D.W. Va. Jan. 14, 2011); see also Landis v. North Am. Co., 299
U.S. 248, 254–55 (1936)(holding that the decision whether to grant
a stay is discretionary, and within the inherent power of the court
“to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with
economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for
litigants.”). “The party seeking a stay must justify it by clear
and convincing circumstances outweighing potential harm to the
party against whom it is operative.” Williford v. Armstrong World
Indus., Inc., 715 F.2d 124, 127 (4th Cir. 1983). Relevant factors
for the Court's consideration include “(1) the interests of
judicial economy; (2) hardship and equity to the moving party if
the action is not stayed; and (3) potential prejudice to the non-
moving party.” Tolley v. Monsanto Co., 591 F.Supp.2d 837, 844 (S.D.
W. Va. 2008) (internal citation omitted).
Case 1:17-cv-00088-TSK Document 376 Filed 07/12/21 Page 7 of 12 PageID #:
<pageID>
ROMEO, ET. AL V. ANTERO 1:17CV88
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STAY [DKT. NO. 368]
8
B. Analysis
Here, the interests of judicial economy and the potential
hardship imposed upon Antero if its motion is denied weigh heavily
in favor of staying this case.
1. Interests of judicial economy
Antero asserts that judicial economy is best served by staying
this case pending resolution of the appeal in Corder because the
Fourth Circuit’s decision regarding the applicability of Wellman
and Tawney to royalty provisions identical to those at issue here
will impact the outcome of this action (Dkt. No. 368-1 at 7).
Additionally, Antero argues that, if this case is not stayed and
the Fourth Circuit reverses or vacates the decision in Corder, the
Court will be required to reconsider any summary judgment decision
in this action, which would lead to confusion among the Plaintiffs
and wasted resources. Id.
The Plaintiffs, however, contend that Antero has “fail[ed] to
identify any specific question of West Virginia law which might be
at issue in the Corder appeal, or how the resolution of any such
issue would impact any issue of substance in this case” (Dkt. No.
370 at 3). The Court finds this argument disingenuous.
In Corder, the Court ruled that market value leases are
subject to the dictates of Wellman and Tawney. This is the first
common question of law identified in Romeo, and one that the
Case 1:17-cv-00088-TSK Document 376 Filed 07/12/21 Page 8 of 12 PageID #:
<pageID>
ROMEO, ET. AL V. ANTERO 1:17CV88
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STAY [DKT. NO. 368]
9
parties discuss at length in their cross motions for summary
judgment. Should the Fourth Circuit reverse or vacate the decision
in Corder, this Court also would have to reconsider the
applicability of Wellman and Tawney to the leases in this case.
Further, as Antero contends, the Romeo Class Lease royalty
provisions are identical to several of the royalty provisions at
issue in Corder. For example, the Mutschelknaus Lease in this
action contains the same royalty provision as Lease 9 in Corder,
and the Matthey Lease in this action contains the same royalty
provision as Leases 6 and 7 in Corder. In Corder, the Court found
that Leases 6, 7, and 9, in their unmodified form were governed by
Wellman and Tawney and did not allow Antero to allocate any portion
of post-production costs to the royalty payees.
As well, several of the Class Leases in this case have been
modified to include the same market enhancement clause at issue in
Corder. There, the Court found that the market enhancement clause
was ambiguous and failed to satisfy the second prong of the Tawney
analysis. Antero argues that, to the extent that these modified
Class Leases are part of the Class here, the Fourth Circuit’s
decision in Corder would impact any analysis of Antero’s obligation
under this clause.
The Court recognizes that very few of the Class Leases in
this case contain the modification at issue in Corder.
Case 1:17-cv-00088-TSK Document 376 Filed 07/12/21 Page 9 of 12 PageID #:
<pageID>
ROMEO, ET. AL V. ANTERO 1:17CV88
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STAY [DKT. NO. 368]
10
Nevertheless, because Corder also discussed both Class Lease
royalty provisions in their unmodified form, each of the Class
Leases here may be impacted by the Fourth Circuit’s decision in
Corder. Overall, therefore, this factor weighs heavily in favor of
staying the case.
2. Hardship to Antero
Antero next contends that it faces actual and immediate
irreparable harm if a stay is denied because it will be required
to expend substantial resources to prepare for trial and, if
unsuccessful, to file an appeal on nearly identical issues (Dkt.
No. 368 at 8). The Plaintiffs ignored this factor in their
briefing.
This factor weighs in favor of staying the case. If this case
proceeds to trial, and the Fourth Circuit thereafter reverses or
vacates this Court’s decision in Corder, both parties will have
unnecessarily incurred the expense of trial.
3. Potential prejudice to the Plaintiffs
Finally, Antero argues that the Plaintiffs will not be harmed
if this case is stayed because there have been no meaningful
settlement negotiations, the Fourth Circuit will resolve the
Corder appeal in a timely manner, and any delay will be minimal
given the duration of this litigation. Id. at 8–9. Antero also
Case 1:17-cv-00088-TSK Document 376 Filed 07/12/21 Page 10 of 12 PageID #:
<pageID>
ROMEO, ET. AL V. ANTERO 1:17CV88
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STAY [DKT. NO. 368]
11
states that a stay will actually benefit the Plaintiffs because
they will be spared the expense of litigating an appeal. Id.
The Plaintiffs point out, however, that Antero has moved to
stay the case only six (6) weeks before a trial for which they
have been diligently preparing. This case has been pending since
May 15, 2017, and delaying its final disposition for an indefinite
period of time pending Antero’s appeal in a separate action will
prejudice the Plaintiffs as they may be entitled to damages from
Antero in this case. Antero noticed its appeal in Corder on June
24, 2021, an appellate case was opened on June 28, 2021, but no
briefing schedule has yet been entered. Therefore, this factor
weighs slightly against staying the case.
Although there is a looming trial date and the parties have
fully discovered this case, the Corder appeal will address the
heartland issue in this litigation, whether Wellman and Tawney
apply to both market value and proceeds leases. Neither party
denies that resolution of this question by the Fourth Circuit in
Corder will have material effect on the outcome of this litigation.
Thus, while the Plaintiffs may suffer some prejudice by a
stay in this case, such prejudice is not unfair. The Court has not
yet decided summary judgment and the parties, who have not yet
participated in a final pretrial conference, will be spared any
further expense of litigation. The slight prejudice to the
Case 1:17-cv-00088-TSK Document 376 Filed 07/12/21 Page 11 of 12 PageID #:
<pageID>
ROMEO, ET. AL V. ANTERO 1:17CV88
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STAY [DKT. NO. 368]
12
Plaintiffs is outweighed by the interests of judicial economy in
avoiding duplicative litigation and the irreparable harm Antero
would incur should its motion be denied.
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed, the Court:
GRANTED Antero’s motion to stay (Dkt. No. 368);
STAYED this case pending resolution of the appeal in
Corder v. Antero Resources Corp., Civil Action No.
1:18CV30 (Lead Case); and
DIRECTED the parties to advise it when the Fourth Circuit
Court of Appeals issues a final decision in Corder.
It is so ORDERED.
The Clerk SHALL transmit copies of this Memorandum Opinion
and Order to counsel of record.
DATED: July 12, 2021
/s/ Irene M. Keeley
IRENE M. KEELEY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 1:17-cv-00088-TSK Document 376 Filed 07/12/21 Page 12 of 12 PageID #:
<pageID>