Summary
The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia held that it could immediately review the denial of the petitioners’ summary-judgment motion under the collateral-order doctrine because the motion asserted immunity defenses. The court concluded that the litigation privilege and the Noerr-Pennington doctrine barred Chestnut Ridge Storage, LLC’s counterclaims arising from the petitioners’ participation and statements in a FERC proceeding. The court reversed the circuit court’s order and remanded with directions to enter summary judgment for the petitioners.
Holdings
- The denial of Petitioners' summary-judgment motion was immediately reviewable under the collateral order doctrine because the immunity issues conclusively determined an important issue separate from the merits and would be effectively unreviewable after trial.
- Petitioners were immune from Chestnut Ridge's counterclaim under the litigation privilege because the counterclaim was based solely on statements made during a quasi-judicial FERC proceeding.
- Petitioners' participation and statements in the FERC proceeding were protected by the Noerr-Pennington doctrine, which barred all of Chestnut Ridge's claims based on that petitioning activity.
- Petitioners were entitled to summary judgment on the entirety of Chestnut Ridge's counterclaim, including its declaratory-judgment claims.
Questions Presented
- Whether the circuit court's denial of Petitioners' summary-judgment motion based on immunity was immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine.
- Whether Petitioners' participation and statements in the FERC proceeding were protected by West Virginia's litigation privilege.
- Whether Petitioners' participation and statements in the FERC proceeding were protected by the Noerr-Pennington doctrine.
- Whether the litigation privilege and Noerr-Pennington doctrine applied to Chestnut Ridge's breach-of-contract, slander-of-title, civil-conspiracy, and declaratory-judgment claims.
Disposition
reversed_and_remanded
Cases Cited (21)
- Findley v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 213 W. Va. 80, 576 S.E.2d 807 (2002)(followed)
- Painter v. Peavy, 192 W. Va. 189, 451 S.E.2d 755 (1994)(followed)
- Williams v. Precision Coil, Inc., 194 W. Va. 52, 459 S.E.2d 329 (1995)(followed)
- Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Federal Insurance Co. of New York, 148 W. Va. 160, 133 S.E.2d 770 (1963)(followed)
- Robinson v. Pack, 223 W. Va. 828, 679 S.E.2d 660 (2009)(followed)
- Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Front, 231 W. Va. 518, 745 S.E.2d 556 (2013)(followed)
- Clark v. Druckman, 218 W. Va. 427, 624 S.E.2d 864 (2005)(followed)
- Collins v. Red Roof Inns, Inc., 211 W. Va. 458, 566 S.E.2d 595 (2002)(followed)
- Barefield v. DPIC Cos., Inc., 215 W. Va. 544, 600 S.E.2d 256 (2004)(followed)
- Farber v. Dale, 182 W. Va. 784, 392 S.E.2d 224 (1990)(followed)
Showing top 10 of 21.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…