In re Lipsky

Steven and Shyla Lipsky (plaintiffs) owned property in Texas. In 2005, they drilled a well about 200 feet deep to supply water to a cabin and boathouse. In 2009, after constructing a house on the property, they connected it to the well. That same year, Range Resources Corporation and Range Production Company (collectively, Range) (defendants) drilled two gas wells about half a mile away. Soon after, the Lipskys began experiencing problems with their well. The problem was identified as “gas locking,” caused by excessive natural gas in the groundwater. Alisa Rich, an environmental consultant, confirmed the presence of methane and other gases in the well. Around this time, Steven filmed a video of himself lighting gas escaping from a garden hose attached to his well. He shared the video with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the media, leading to widespread coverage. The Lipskys also complained to the Texas Railroad Commission (commission), believing Range was responsible for contaminating the groundwater. The EPA investigated and initially concluded that Range’s operations contributed to the contamination. The EPA ordered Range to provide the Lipskys with potable water and to install explosivity monitors at their property. The commission also investigated but concluded that Range’s operations were not the source of the contamination. Steven publicly denounced the commission’s decision, continuing to attribute the contamination to Range, citing the EPA’s position and his expert’s findings. The Lipskys brought suit against Range and other area developers (defendants). As to Range, the Lipskys alleged that its fracking operations were negligent and grossly negligent and that they constituted a nuisance by contaminating the Lipskys’ well, rendering their water flammable and their home uninhabitable. Range responded by seeking dismissal of the claims as an improper collateral attack on the commission’s ruling. Range also filed counterclaims against the Lipskys and a third-party claim against Rich for defamation, business disparagement, and civil conspiracy. The Lipskys and Rich moved to dismiss Range’s counterattack under Texas’s anti-SLAPP law.