Leighton et al v. Chesapeake Appalachia, L.L.C. et al
| Nancy A. Leighton and Michael L. Leighton |
| Nomac Drilling, L.L.C., Chesapeake Energy Corporation, Chesapeake Appalachia, L.L.C., Schlumberger Technology Corporation and John and Jane Does 1-100 |
| 1:2013cv02018 |
| July 26, 2013 |
| US District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania |
| Harrisburg Office |
| Bradford |
| William W. Caldwell |
| Torts to Land |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 Diversity-Torts to Land |
| None |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
31
ORDER (memorandum filed previously as separate docket entry): Dfts mtn 5 to compel arbitration is stayed. 2. The parties are granted (90) days to conduct discovery on the following: (1) whether Schlumberger is an agent of Chesapeake Appalachia unde r Pennsylvania agency principles; (2) whether Chesapeake Energy and Nomac canalso be agents; and (3) whether this case involves interstate commerce.3. The parties shall thereafter have thirty days to file briefson the impact of the discovery on the l aw to be applied andwhether the discovery alters our conclusion that Pltfs and Chesapeake Appalachia, Chesapeake Energy, and Nomac should proceed to arbitration and that the claims against Schlumberger should be stayed pending resolution of thearbitration proceedings.Signed by Honorable William W. Caldwell on 11/26/13. (ma)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Pennsylvania Middle District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
