No. 23-661

Tug Hill Operating, LLC v. Lastephen Rogers

Lower Court: Fourth Circuit
Docketed: 2023-12-19
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Amici (1)Response Waived Experienced Counsel
Tags: arbitrability arbitration-agreement arbitration-agreements circuit-split contract-interpretation delegation-doctrine delegation-of-arbitrability gateway-questions nonsignatories nonsignatory third-party-beneficiary
Key Terms:
Arbitration WageAndHour Privacy
Latest Conference: 2024-02-16
Question Presented (from Petition)

When an arbitration agreement delegates gateway questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator, may a court still interpret the agreement for itself to decide whether the agreement covers nonsignatories?

Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether a court may interpret a nonsignatory's contractual rights despite a delegation of questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator

Docket Entries

2024-02-20
Petition DENIED.
2024-02-08
Supplemental brief of petitioner Tug Hill Operating, LLC filed. (Distributed)
2024-01-24
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/16/2024.
2024-01-18
Waiver of right of respondent Lastephen Rogers to respond filed.
2024-01-18
Brief amicus curiae of American Exploration and Production Council filed.
2024-01-17
Application (23A567) denied by The Chief Justice.
2024-01-08
Reply of applicant Tug Hill Operating, LLC filed.
2024-01-03
Response to application from respondent Lastephen Rogers filed.
2023-12-20
Response to application (23A567) requested by The Chief Justice, due by 4 p.m. (EST), January 3, 2024.
2023-12-15
2023-12-15
2023-10-27
Application (23A379) granted by The Chief Justice extending the time to file until January 4, 2024.
2023-10-24
Application (23A379) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from November 5, 2023 to January 4, 2024, submitted to The Chief Justice.

Attorneys

American Exploration and Production Council
Steven Paul LehotskyLehotsky Keller Cohn LLP, Amicus
Lastephen Rogers
Anthony Joseph MajestroPowell & Majestro, Respondent
Tug Hill Operating, LLC
John Caviness O'QuinnKirkland & Ellis LLP, Petitioner