Kahle v. Chesapeake Energy Corporation, 5:11-cv-00024

Kahle plaintiffs filed a declaratory judgment action in Ohio County, WV, seeking to void a 2006 Lease and any alleged assignments to Chesapeake entities, then removed to this court on Feb 14, 2011.
May 15, 2006 Lease was with Great Lakes Energy Partners (Range’s subsidiary) and did not authorize Range to sell or assign the Lease.
Plaintiffs allege Range terminated/surrendered the Lease on Aug 20, 2010, with Range later confirming termination in writing.
Chesapeake and/or Chesapeake Energy informed the Kahles it had acquired the Lease; a notice of entry was issued Oct 18, 2010 and Kevin Swiger allegedly entered plaintiffs’ land despite termination.
Chesapeake sought permits to drill beginning December 2010; plaintiffs contend Range could not have validly assignable Lease as termination occurred before any purported assignment.
The court granted the motion to dismiss Chesapeake Energy and Swiger; Chesapeake Appalachia and Statoil remain parties.
The court also indicated plaintiffs reserve right to amend, depending on future litigation deadlines.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Chesapeake Energy and Swiger are proper parties.	Kahle argues defendants are not parties to the Lease or its assignment.	Chesapeake Energy and Swiger are not parties to the Lease or the alleged assignment and thus improper.	Granted; dismissal as to Chesapeake Energy and Swiger.
Whether the complaint states a claim against Chesapeake Energy and Swiger.	Plaintiffs reserve right to amend to articulate claims against these parties.	No factual pleadings against Chesapeake Energy or Swiger to support claims.	Dismissal as to these two defendants; amendment rights left undecided.
Whether the complaint states a claim that defendants lack the right to enter based on Lease termination.	Lease termination by Range invalidates any assignment or entry rights.	Defendants contend they may have rights irrespective of termination allegations.	Court did not reach merits on this issue; dismissal based on lack of claims against the two dismissed parties.

Nemet Chevrolet, Ltd v. Consumeraffairs.com, Inc., 591 F.3d 250 (4th Cir. 2009) (standard for Rule 12(b)(6) plausibility; factual assertions must be plausible)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (U.S. 2009) (plausibility pleading standard; legal conclusions insufficient)
Twombly v. Bell Atl. Corp., 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (facial plausibility required for claims)
Wahi v. Charleston Area Med. Ctr., Inc., 562 F.3d 599 (4th Cir. 2009) (avoid unwarranted inferences; caution against bare assertions)
Giarratano v. Johnson, 521 F.3d 298 (4th Cir. 2008) (pleading standards; no requirement for detailed factual allegations)