Gerhart v. Energy Transfer Partners, L.P., 1:17-cv-01726

• Decision Date: 14 December 2018
• Docket Number: No. 1:17-cv-01726,1:17-cv-01726
• Parties: ELLEN GERHART, et al., Plaintiffs v. ENERGY TRANSFER PARTNERS, L.P., et al., Defendants
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of Pennsylvania

ELLEN GERHART, et al., Plaintiffs v. ENERGY TRANSFER PARTNERS, L.P., et al., Defendants

No. 1:17-cv-01726

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

December 14, 2018

(Judge Kane)

MEMORANDUM

Before the Court are motions to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) filed by: (1) Defendants Sheriff William Walters, Deputy Sheriff Doe, Deputy Sheriff Poe, and Deputy Sheriff Roe (the "Sheriff/Deputies Defendants") (Doc. No. 17); (2) Defendants Energy Transfer Partners, L.P. ("Energy Transfer Partners"), Sunoco Logistics, L.P. ("Sunoco Logistics"), and Sunoco Pipeline, L.P. ("Sunoco Pipeline") (collectively referred to herein as the "Sunoco Defendants") (Doc. No. 19); (3) Defendant TigerSwan, LLC ("TigerSwan") (Doc. No. 33); and (4) Defendant Nick Johnson ("Johnson") (Doc. No. 47). For the reasons provided herein, the Court will grant the motions.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Procedural Background

Plaintiffs Ellen Gerhart, Elise Gerhart, Alex Lotorto ("Lotorto"), and Elizabeth Glunt ("Glunt") (collectively referred to herein as "Plaintiffs") initiated the above-captioned action by filing a complaint in this Court on September 25, 2017. (Doc. No. 1.) That eight-count complaint asserts claims of: malicious prosecution, false arrest, abuse of civil process, nuisance, invasion of privacy, trespass, and violations of First Amendment and Equal Protection rights against numerous defendants. (Id. at 29-35.)

On November 28, 2017, the Sheriff/Deputies Defendants¹ and the Sunoco Defendants filed motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim. (Doc. Nos. 17, 19.) Defendant TigerSwan timely filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim on January 2, 2018. (Doc. No. 33.) Defendant Johnson timely filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim on March 8, 2018. (Doc. No. 47.) On March 22, 2018, Plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion to amend/correct their complaint. (Doc. No. 49.) The Court granted that motion on March 26, 2018, and Plaintiffs' amended complaint was deemed filed as of March 22, 2018. (Doc. No. 51.) Additionally, the Court ordered that all motions to dismiss filed by Defendants were deemed to be responsive to the amended complaint and that all briefs in support of and in opposition to those motions would be treated as briefs in support of and in opposition to the motions to dismiss the amended complaint. (Id.) Similar to the original complaint, Plaintiffs' eight-count amended complaint (Doc. No. 49-1), also asserts claims of: malicious prosecution, false arrest, abuse of civil process, nuisance, invasion of privacy, trespass, and violations of First Amendment and Equal Protection rights against numerous defendants. (Id. at 30-36.) Accordingly, as all four pending motions to dismiss are fully briefed, they are ripe for disposition.²

B. Factual Background³

The allegations in the amended complaint stem from several incidents involving demonstrations in opposition to the construction of the Mariner East 2 pipeline on an easement over property owned by Plaintiff Ellen Gerhart in Huntingdon, Pennsylvania.⁴ (Doc. No. 49-1.) These demonstrations occurred on March 29, March 30, and April 7, 2016, when tree-cutters began to clear trees on the easement. (Id. ¶¶ 20, 59, 81-82.) In addition, Plaintiffs' allegations also relate to an alleged surveillance and media campaign conducted by several defendants against two of the plaintiffs and their supporters based on their opposition to the pipeline construction. (Id. ¶¶ 95, 100, 102, 107.) Before turning to the events that prompted the instant action, the Court sets forth the numerous parties to this action.

1. The Parties

a. Plaintiff Ellen Gerhart

Plaintiff Ellen Gerhart resides at 15357 Trough Creek Valley Pike in Huntingdon, Pennsylvania (the "Property"), which she owns with her husband, Stephen Gerhart. (Id. ¶¶ 3, 12.) She was present at the Property during the demonstration in opposition to the pipeline construction on March 30, 2016. (Id. ¶¶ 59-60.) She was arrested during the demonstration on March 30, 2016 and charged with indirect criminal contempt and disorderly conduct. (Id. ¶¶ 63-67.) The next week, on April 7, 2016, she was arrested again on the Property and charged withindirect criminal contempt and disorderly conduct after a separate confrontation with police and a tree-cutting crew. (Id. ¶¶ 68-74.)

b. Plaintiff Elise Gerhart

Plaintiff Elise Gerhart also resides at the Property with Ellen and Stephen Gerhart. (Id. ¶¶ 3, 12.) She was present during the demonstrations on the Property on March 29, 2016 and April 7, 2016. (Id. ¶¶ 78-82.) On both March 29 and April 7, Elise engaged in tree-sitting, which entails occupying a tree as a form of protest so that it cannot be cut down without seriously injuring or harming the occupant. (Id.) On April 7, 2016, while Elise was tree-sitting, an unidentified law enforcement officer informed her that she would be charged with a crime. (Id. ¶ 86.) Subsequently, Elise Gerhart was charged with summary and misdemeanor disorderly conduct. (Id. ¶ 87.)

c. Plaintiffs Alex Lotorto and Elizabeth Glunt

Plaintiffs Alex Lotorto and Elizabeth Glunt are supporters of the Gerharts who were on the Property on March 29, 2016 during the demonstration in opposition to the pipeline construction, with the Gerharts' permission. (Id. ¶¶ 4, 5, 28-29, 42.) Both Plaintiffs Lotorto and Glunt were arrested during the demonstration on March 29, 2016 and charged with disorderly conduct and criminal contempt. (Id. ¶¶ 32-36, 50-52.)

d. Pennsylvania State Police Defendants and Huntingdon County Sheriff's Office Defendants

Defendants Lieutenant William Benson, Trooper Michael Ehgartner, and Trooper Dunsmore (the "PSP Defendants") are officers of the Pennsylvania State Police.⁵ (Id. ¶ 7.) Defendants Sheriff William Walters and Deputy Sheriffs Nathan Betts, Larry Cressman, NathanGoshorn, Jeffery E. Leonard, and Daniel McCartney (the "Sheriff/Deputies Defendants") are members of the Huntingdon County Sheriff's Office.⁶ (Id. ¶ 8.) Plaintiffs allege that the PSP Defendants and the Sheriff/Deputies Defendants were present on the Property during the demonstrations at the Property on March 29, March 30, and April 7, 2016 and participated in the decisions to arrest and charge Plaintiffs, as well as their subsequent arrests, on those dates. (Id. ¶¶ 28, 32-37, 44, 49-54 63, 66-67, 72-74, 88-90.)

e. Energy Company Defendants

Defendants Energy Transfer Partners, L.P. ("Energy Transfer Partners"), Sunoco Pipeline, L.P. ("Sunoco Pipeline"), and Sunoco Logistics, L.P. ("Sunoco Logistics") (all three collectively the "Sunoco Defendants") are entities that are involved in the construction of the Mariner East 2 pipeline. (Id. ¶¶ 13, 95.) Sunoco Logistics was a subsidiary of Energy Transfer Partners, and Sunoco Logistics owned and operated Sunoco Pipeline, prior to April 28, 2017, when Energy Transfer Partners and Sunoco Logistics merged.⁷ (Id. ¶ 6-6B.)

f. Defendant TigerSwan, LLC

Defendant TigerSwan, LLC ("TigerSwan") is a private security company located in North Carolina that had previously been hired by Energy Transfer Partners to provide surveillance and other "military-style counterterrorism measures" during the 2016 Standing Rockdemonstrations in the Midwestern United States. (Id. ¶¶ 10, 93-94.) Plaintiffs allege that Energy Transfer Partners hired TigerSwan to provide their services, including surveillance, social media engagement, and counterintelligence, in relation to the construction of the Mariner East 2 pipeline project in Pennsylvania. (Id. ¶ 95.)

g. Defendant Nick Johnson

Defendant Nick Johnson is a social media consultant from North Carolina. (Id. 11.) Plaintiffs allege that Energy Transfer Partners hired Johnson to produce and disseminate content in opposition to the Gerharts and their supporters through social media and other online platforms. (Id. ¶¶ 106-08, 115-25, 129.)

2. The Gerhart Property, the Mariner East 2 Pipeline, and the Court of Common Pleas Order

As previously noted, Plaintiff Ellen Gerhart and her husband own and reside at 15357 Trough Creek Valley Pike in Huntingdon, Pennsylvania (the "Property"). (Id. ¶ 12.) The Gerharts purchased the 27-acre parcel of land in 1983 and have since constructed their home on it. (Id.) The Property is substantially wooded and includes a stream, a small pond, and a wetlands area. (Id.)

On July 21, 2015, Sunoco Logistics, acting through Sunoco Pipeline, filed a Declaration of Taking in the Huntingdon County Court of Common Pleas pertaining to a section of the Property, in order to facilitate the construction of the Mariner East 2 pipeline. (Id. ¶ 13.) As a result of that filing, the Huntingdon County Court of Common Pleas granted Sunoco Logistics an easement over the Property (the "Easement").⁸ (Id.)

Over nine months later, on March 28, 2016, the day before the Sunoco Defendants began clearing trees on the Easement (Id. ¶ 20), the Huntingdon County Court of Common Pleas issued an order (the "Court of Common Pleas Order"), stating, in part, as follows:⁹

Stephen Gerhart and Ellen Gerhart and any and all parties or persons acting in concert with them as well as any and all persons on property owned by Stephen and Ellen Gerhart or in the vicinity thereof are hereby restrained and enjoined pending further Order of Court from barring, preventing or otherwise interfering in any way with Sunoco Pipeline's access to the easement on the Gerharts' property . . . . Stephen and Ellen Gerhart and all persons acting in concert with them as well as all persons on property owned by Stephen and Ellen Gerhart or in the vicinity thereof are hereby restrained and enjoined pending further Order of Court from barring, preventing, or otherwise interfering in any way with Sunoco Pipeline's removing of or clearing trees and shrubbery on said easement.

(Doc. No. 17-1 at 1.) The Court of Common Pleas Order further states that:

[T]he Sheriff of Huntingdon County is directed to coordinate with the

...