AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• Plaintiffs, Woody Investments, LLC, and Pipkin Corporation, owned or leased land on which Defendants, Sovereign Eagle, LLC, and Dawson Geophysical Company, conducted geophysical seismic surveys for evaluating potential oil and gas operations. The surveys were conducted without an agreed-upon surface use and compensation agreement, leading to Plaintiffs filing a complaint for damages under the Surface Owners Protection Act (SOPA), breach of contract, negligence, and trespass.

Procedural History

• District Court of De Baca County: Granted summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ SOPA and breach of contract claims, leading to a trial on negligence and trespass claims where the jury found no liability.

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiffs: Argued that Defendants' geophysical seismic survey activities constituted negligence and trespass, and violated SOPA and breach of contract, seeking damages for the harm caused to their land.
• Defendants: Contended that the geophysical seismic surveys did not disturb the surface as defined in SOPA and were not considered oil and gas operations under SOPA, thus arguing they were not liable for the claimed damages.

Legal Issues

• Whether Defendants’ geophysical seismic survey is considered an “oil and gas operation” under SOPA.
• Whether Plaintiffs are entitled to damages under SOPA and breach of contract claims.
• Whether the district court erred in not allowing Plaintiffs’ expert witness on damages to testify at the trial.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ SOPA claim and breach of contract claims, except for the third-party beneficiary claim, and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, with Chief Judge Michael E. Vigil and Judges James J. Wechsler and Timothy L. Garcia concurring, found that the district court erred in its interpretation of SOPA, concluding that Defendants’ geophysical seismic survey activities do fall under the definition of “oil and gas operations” as per SOPA (paras 7-18). The Court also found that the complaint sufficiently pleaded damages to the range, which were improperly excluded by the district court’s summary judgment on breach of contract claims (paras 19-27). The Court disagreed with the district court’s decision to disregard an affidavit from Mr. Woody, finding it did not create a sham issue of fact (paras 28-32). However, the Court agreed with the district court that Plaintiffs could not recover under a “good neighbor policy” as third-party beneficiaries (paras 33-35). The Court did not address Plaintiffs’ argument regarding the exclusion of their expert witness’s testimony on damages due to the jury finding no liability on negligence and trespass claims (para 36). Lastly, the Court did not address Defendants’ cross-appeal for attorney fees and costs under SOPA, as Defendants were no longer considered "prevailing" parties following the reversal of summary judgment on the SOPA claim (para 37).