Oak River Holdings, LLC v. 7-Eleven, Inc., 3:23-cv-00763

Oak River Holdings, LLC owns property in Huntington, WV, leased to 7-Eleven, Inc. for use as a gas station since 2012.
7-Eleven eventually ceased operations and removed underground gasoline storage tanks and related equipment from the property without Oak River’s prior consent.
Oak River demanded return and/or reinstallation of the removed equipment twice; 7-Eleven refused.
Oak River sued, alleging breach of lease and bringing additional tort claims for waste and intentional tort based on the removal.
Previously, the court denied a motion to dismiss Oak River's specific performance claim but was now asked to dismiss the tort claims.
7-Eleven moved to dismiss the tort claims under the 'gist of the action' doctrine, arguing they were contractual in nature.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Oak River's tort claims (waste, intentional tort) can proceed separately from its breach of contract claim under the 'gist of the action' doctrine	Oak River contends a duty to prevent waste exists independent of the lease, so tort claims should survive	7-Eleven argues tort claims rely solely on alleged contractual duties and are barred by the 'gist of the action' doctrine	The tort claims are barred; Oak River’s claims do not allege any duty independent of the contract

Gaddy Eng’g Co. v. Bowles Rice McDavid Graff & Love, 746 S.E.2d 568 (W. Va. 2013) (gist of the action doctrine prevents recasting contract claims as tort claims)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (standard for plausibility in pleadings)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (complaint must state a plausible claim to survive dismissal)
Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231 (4th Cir. 1999) (standards for courts reviewing motions to dismiss)