Canaan Wildlife Preserve, Inc. v. Chesapeake Energy Corp.

Eighth Circuit

Canaan Wildlife Preserve, Inc. v. Chesapeake Energy Corp.

638 F. App'x 564

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedMarch 24, 2016

Docket15-2499

StatusUnpublished

This text of 638 F. App'x 564 (Canaan Wildlife Preserve, Inc. v. Chesapeake Energy Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Canaan Wildlife Preserve, Inc. v. Chesapeake Energy Corp., 638 F. App'x 564 (8th Cir. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The Caruso Law Firm, P.C. (Caruso) and Smolen, Smolen & Roytman, PLLC (Smolen) appeal the district court’s 1 order declaring that their fee agreements with the individual plaintiffs did not entitle them to a lien on a class recovery. Caruso and Smolen argue that the individual plaintiffs lacked standing to assert this issue, that the issue was not ripe, and that the order was an impermissible advisory opinion. We conclude that the issue was justiciable, as in the absence of a declaration from the district court the individual plaintiffs were unable to secure counsel or prosecute their pending suit because of Caruso and Smolen’s claimed lien; moreover, the issue was decided based on existing, not hypothetical, facts. See Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 559-61, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992) (standing requires that party suffered concrete, not hypothetical injury fairly traceable to defendant’s challenged action; and that injury would likely be redressed by favorable decision); Maytag Corp. v. Int’l Union, United Auto., Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of Am., 687 F.3d 1076, 1081-82 (8th Cir.2012) (in context of request for declaratory judgment in dispute between parties to contract, Article III considerations include whether contractual dispute is real and not factually hypothetical, whether it can be resolved by judicial declaration of parties’ contractual rights, and whether declaration is necessary for plaintiff to carry on with business; parties need not wait for actual breach or violation to seek declaratory judgment); Jones v. Gale, 470 F.3d 1261, 1265 (8th Cir.2006) (appellate court reviews de novo whether plaintiffs had standing); Pub. Water Supply Dist. No. 8 v. City of Kearney, 401 F.3d 930, 932 (8th Cir.2005) (advisory opinion is one that advises what law would be based on hypothetical state of facts); McCarney v. Ford Motor Co., 657 F.2d 230, 233 (8th Cir.1981) (issue of standing is part of concept of justiciability *566 that includes questions of advisory opinions and ripeness).

The judgment is affirmed.

1

. The Honorable Timothy L. Brooks, United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

The Caruso Law Firm, P.C. (Caruso) and Smolen, Smolen & Roytman, PLLC (Smolen) appeal the district court’s 1 order declaring that their fee agreements with the individual plaintiffs did not entitle them to a lien on a class recovery. Caruso and Smolen argue that the individual plaintiffs lacked standing to assert this issue, that the issue was not ripe, and that the order was an impermissible advisory opinion. We conclude that the issue was justiciable, as in the absence of a declaration from the district court the individual plaintiffs were unable to secure counsel or prosecute their pending suit because of Caruso and Smolen’s claimed lien; moreover, the issue was decided based on existing, not hypothetical, facts. See Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 559-61, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992) (standing requires that party suffered concrete, not hypothetical injury fairly traceable to defendant’s challenged action; and that injury would likely be redressed by favorable decision); Maytag Corp. v. Int’l Union, United Auto., Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of Am., 687 F.3d 1076, 1081-82 (8th Cir.2012) (in context of request for declaratory judgment in dispute between parties to contract, Article III considerations include whether contractual dispute is real and not factually hypothetical, whether it can be resolved by judicial declaration of parties’ contractual rights, and whether declaration is necessary for plaintiff to carry on with business; parties need not wait for actual breach or violation to seek declaratory judgment); Jones v. Gale, 470 F.3d 1261, 1265 (8th Cir.2006) (appellate court reviews de novo whether plaintiffs had standing); Pub. Water Supply Dist. No. 8 v. City of Kearney, 401 F.3d 930, 932 (8th Cir.2005) (advisory opinion is one that advises what law would be based on hypothetical state of facts); McCarney v. Ford Motor Co., 657 F.2d 230, 233 (8th Cir.1981) (issue of standing is part of concept of justiciability *566 that includes questions of advisory opinions and ripeness).

The judgment is affirmed.

1

. The Honorable Timothy L. Brooks, United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

638 F. App'x 564, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/canaan-wildlife-preserve-inc-v-chesapeake-energy-corp-ca8-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack