• Skip to main content
  • Home
  • Contact
  • About
  • Search
    • Search US
    • Search Global
  • Global Litigation
  • U.S. Litigation

Continental Resources, Inc. v. de la Vega

Filing Date: 2021
Case Categories:
  • Federal Statutory Claims
    • Other Statutes and Regulations
Principal Laws:
Mineral Leasing Act (MLA), Administrative Procedure Act (APA)
Description: Oil and gas exploration and production company's lawsuit to compel the U.S. Bureau of Land Management to act on applications for permit to drill.
  • Continental Resources, Inc. v. de la Vega
    Docket number(s): 1:21-cv-00034
    Court/Admin Entity: D.N.D.
    Case Documents:
    Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary
    03/10/2021 Order Download Notice to dismiss adopted by court.
    03/09/2021 Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Download Notice of dismissal of complaint filed. Oil and Gas Company Sought Voluntary Dismissal of Action to Compel Biden Administration Action on Drilling Permits. The federal district court for the District of North Dakota dismissed without prejudice a lawsuit brought by an oil and gas exploration and production company in February 2021 to compel the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to act on applications for permit to drill (APDs) submitted in 2020 for oil and gas leases in North Dakota. The company submitted a notice of voluntary dismissal after BLM granted the APDs in February and March 2021.
    02/23/2021 Complaint Download Complaint filed. Oil and Gas Company Asked Court to Order BLM to Approve Drilling Permits for North Dakota Leases. An oil and gas exploration and production company operating oil and gas leases in North Dakota filed a lawsuit in the federal district court for the District of North Dakota to compel the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to act on applications for permit to drill (APDs) submitted in 2020. The company alleged that BLM would have approved the APDs but for Secretarial Order 3395 signed by the Acting Secretary of the Interior on January 20, 2021, which withdrew authority from BLM to approve the APDs and placed the authority in the hands of new presidential appointees. The company asserted that by failing to approve the APDs, the defendants had failed to meet non-discretionary obligations under the Mineral Leasing Act.

© 2022 · Sabin Center for Climate Change Law · U.S. Litigation Chart made in collaboration with Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP

The materials on this website are intended to provide a general summary of the law and do not constitute legal advice. You should consult with counsel to determine applicable legal requirements in a specific fact situation.