United States Third Circuit

In a dispute arising out of a contract for the purchase of natural gas, and circumstances in which plaintiff-seller was unable to supply the volume of natural gas to defendant-buyer that it believed it was entitled to and buyer responded with certain allegedly improper actions, summary judgment for plaintiff-seller is affirmed in part and vacated in part where: 1) summary judgment to plaintiff on its contract-based claims was proper; but 2) for purposes of a claim for prospective advantage/tortious interference with a future contractual relationship, the district court erred in granting summary judgment sua sponte without notice.

Appellate Information

• Argued 01/23/2007
• Decided 10/16/2007
• Published 10/16/2007

Judges

• Before:  SCIRICA, Chief Judge, FUENTES, and CHAGARES, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Third Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Richard W. Hosking, Esq., (Argued), Gerard J. Schirato, Esq., Melissa J. Tea, Esq., Kilpatrick & Lockhart Nicholson Graham LLP, Henry W. Oliver, Pittsburgh, PA, for Appellant.


• For Appellees:
  
• Thomas T. Frampton, Esq., (Argued), Mandi L. Scott, Esq., Stacy F. Vernallis, Esq., Goehring, Rutter & Boehm, Pittsburgh, PA, for Appellee.