Practices in California & Beyond

Car dependent, emissions-strict and home to a dozen of the 100 largest oil fields in the nation, California has an outsized energy profile filled with conflicting demands and a worldwide audience awaiting our lead. And this California experience translates to our ability to support clients’ needs throughout the U.S.

Focused on Petroleum Companies

Archer Norris represents major and independent petroleum companies conducting business throughout the U.S.. We counsel on commercial, franchise and environmental matters involving refineries and retail and distribution facilities.

We have significant experience in matters involving the Petroleum Marketing Practices Act, and our attorneys have established major precedents in the petroleum retail industry.

Fueling the Energy Business

Skilled in the sophisticated and specialized commercial needs of oil and gas company operations, Archer Norris serves as a statewide legal resource. Our attorneys have experience in counseling on issues involving purchases of downstream facilities, franchises, risk management, pricing and distribution. For one major petroleum company leasing 250 stations across the California, our attorney counseled on commercial, environmental, landlord-tenant and environmental matters related to the establishment and running of the stations.

Strategic Environmental Guidance

The firm’s substantial environmental law capabilities support a local and regional presence for national and independent energy clients. Our attorneys have negotiated and drafted numerous agreements regarding environmental remediation and cost allocation agreements. These include for refinery, retail service station facilities, bulk plants and third-party properties. Our background also involves drafting risk transfer agreements, escrow agreements and related documents involving petroleum contamination at 40 sites in the Western United States.

Defending Major Oil & Gas Litigation

Archer Norris attorneys manage complex disputes involving oil and gas companies operating in California and beyond. Our experience includes a generation’s old, waste oil contamination, cost recovery dispute against California in which we are providing new guidance. In multiple claims made by service station franchisees concerning first refusal to purchase properties, our attorney achieved cost-efficient early case dismissals on summary judgment. Defending Proposition 65 claims against major oil companies is an additional area of significant firm experience.

NameTitlePhoneEmailV-card
Hamerling, Jeffrey Partner925.930.6600 vcard
Wokutch, Andreas Associate949.221.4609 vcard

Cost Recovery Action

  • Cost Recovery - Department of Health Services v. Chevron – Defended major oil company in cost recovery action filed by state against numerous parties for sending waste oil from 1950 to 1980 to a waste oil recycling facility in Sacramento.

Environmental Remediation

  • Oil Industry Environmental Remediation - Negotiated and drafted numerous agreements on environmental remediation and cost allocation agreements, including refinery, retail service station facilities, bulk plants and third party properties.

Facilities Purchase

  • Facilities Purchase - Counseled on purchase of downstream petroleum facilities by large independent refiner.

Franchise and Transactional Counsel

  • Service Stations - Advising petroleum company on commercial, environmental, landlord-tenant and environmental issues in connection with service portfolio.

Litigation

  • Benzene - Defended independent oil company against claims made by surviving family of a tree trimmer, alleging that benzene in the gas exhaust of his trimming machine caused his fatal leukemia. Achieved a zero payment settlement and shut down future litigation threats.

Prop 65

  • Consumer Defense Group v. Shell Oil Company - Defended BP West Coast Products in Proposition 65 case alleging major oil companies and industrial companies did not adequately remediate landfill and post Prop 65 warnings. BP's demurrer was sustained by the Orange County Superior Court and case was affirmed by the California Court of Appeal for the 4th District.