Wild Goose Club v. Wild Goose Storage
Wild Goose Club, Inc. (Club), operates a waterfowl hunting club on approximately 1,500 acres of real property in Butte County. Wild Goose Storage, LLC (Storage) uses depleted reservoirs located far below the surface of the same property to store billions of cubic feet (bcf) of natural gas for later resale on the energy market. Under the terms of a 1997 lease and surface rights addendum, Storage makes lease payments worth hundreds of thousands of dollars each year to lessor, Wild Goose Energy Company, LLC (Energy). However, Club receives no lease payments despite having surface rights to the property.
Starting in 2009, Club sought to receive lease payments from Storage as a third-party beneficiary of the lease. In addition, Club demanded that Storage abate the noise and emissions from its operations site on the property. Club communicated its claims for lease payments to Storage, Storage’s parent company, Niska Gas Storage Partners (Niska), and attorneys for insurers and underwriters who helped Niska issue stock in a public offering. After Storage rejected the demands, Club opposed Storage before the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), informed Niska about the third-party beneficiary claims, and filed the present lawsuit. Club’s complaint is based on its claim that it is the intended third-party beneficiary of the 1997 lease agreement between Storage and Energy. After Energy was joined as an indispensable party, Storage cross-complained against Energy and Club. Club responded with an “anti-SLAPP†motion to strike Storage’s cross-complaint. (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16 (Section 425.16).)[1] The motion was based on the assertion that Storage’s cross-complaint sought to chill Club’s right of petition. Storage opposed the motion, which was granted in part and denied in part by the trial court.
Comments on Wild Goose Club v. Wild Goose Storage