L.A. Cnty. Metro. Transp. Auth. v. S. Cal. Gas Co.

• Decision Date: 13 August 2021
• Docket Number: B288686
• Parties: LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY, Defendant and Respondent.
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY, Defendant and Respondent.

B288686

California Court of Appeals, Second District

August 13, 2021

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC658988 Richard E. Rico, Judge. Affirmed.

Miller Barondess, Louis R. Miller and Mira Hashmill and Office of the County Counsel, Mary C. Wickham, Charles M. Safer Kathleen Dougherty for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, David A. Battaglia, Jennifer K Bracht for Defendant and Respondent.

Best, Best & Kriegler, Scott W. Ditfurth, Thomas M. O'Connell for Amicus Curiae Riverside County Transportation Commission.

Hanson Bridgett, Adam W. Hofmann, Josephine M. Petrick, David C. Casarrubias for Amici Curiae Southern California Regional Rail Authority, Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board, San Bernardino County Transportation Authority, North County Transit District, Ventura County Transportation Commission.

CURREY, J.

Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) and Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas) dispute which of them must pay SoCalGas's pipeline relocation costs occasioned by Metro's 2013 construction of the LAX/Crenshaw line. Metro asserts that licenses permitting SoCalGas to maintain natural gas pipelines on Metro's right of way (ROW) obligate SoCalGas to pay for relocation of pipelines located under two streets that intersect the ROW in the City of Inglewood. SoCalGas counters that Public Utilities Code section 30631^[1] obligates Metro to bear the expense.

This appeal presents two related issues: (1) Whether Metro must reimburse SoCalGas under section 30631, or whether the licenses control; and (2) whether SoCalGas is trespassing on Metro's ROW. According to the parties, we must sort through many different and potentially conflicting sources of law to answer these questions, including: section 30631; the parties' Utility Cooperative Agreement and an amended version of that agreement; licenses between Metro and SoCalGas; easements; and franchise agreements with the City of Inglewood.

In a written ruling, the trial court held that Metro is required to reimburse SoCalGas, and that SoCalGas is not in trespass on Metro's ROW. It entered summary judgment in favor of SoCalGas. We affirm.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

1. The Parties.

(a) Metro.

The Legislature created Metro in 1993. Metro is the combined successor to both the Southern California Rapid Transit District (SCRTD) and the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission (LACTC). (§ 130050.2.) Metro is a public agency and a public corporation. It can make contracts, acquire rights of way, construct rail lines, incur bonded indebtedness, exercise eminent domain, and levy and collect taxes. (See, e.g., §§ 30005, 30503, 30530, 30700, 30900, 30930.)

(b) SoCalGas.

SoCalGas is an investor-owned public utility providing natural gas to over 21 million customers in Southern California. It is regulated by the California Public Utilities Commission.

2. Construction of the LAX/Crenshaw Line.

Metro is responsible for the construction and operation of commuter rail lines in Los Angeles County, including the Gold (L), Blue (A), Red (B), Green (C), and Expo (E) lines.

To build these and future transit rail lines, Metro in some cases acquired former ROW from private railroad companies. In October 1992, Metro purchased the “Harbor Subdivision” (a railway corridor) from the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway (ATSF) pursuant to a Grant Deed and Purchase Agreement dated June 30, 1993. The Grant Deed provided that Metro obtained its railway property from ATSF “subject only to the following permitted exceptions[.]” One of the exceptions provided that Metro took the property “subject to all applicable laws, rules, regulations or orders of any municipality or other governmental, statutory or public authority[.]”

In 2013, Metro commenced construction of the 8.5 mile LAX/Crenshaw line, which extends from the intersection of Crenshaw and Exposition Boulevards to LAX, and is located on portions of the Harbor Subdivision. The route crosses many streets, including Arbor Vitae Street and Redondo Boulevard in the City of Inglewood. In 2015, Metro informed SoCalGas that its pipelines underneath Arbor Vitae Street and Redondo Boulevard-where those streets intersected with Metro's new route-conflicted with construction of the LAX/Crenshaw line and must be relocated.

SoCalGas objected to paying the costs of relocating its pipelines. Metro refused to reimburse SoCalGas or accept responsibility for SoCalGas's relocation costs. It did agree, however, to pay for relocation, subject to a reservation of rights, pending resolution of the dispute over relocation costs. Thereafter, SoCalGas relocated its pipelines.

The total cost to SoCalGas to relocate its pipelines at the Redondo ROW was approximately $620, 000 and the estimated cost at the Arbor Vitae ROW was approximately $500, 000.

3. Section 30631 and Utility Relocation.

In 1964, the Legislature enacted the Southern California Rapid Transit District Law. (Sen. Bill No. 41 (1964 1st Ex. Sess, § 1.).) The current version of section 30631, subdivision (a) gives Metro the right to acquire property interests, including rights of way. Section 30631, subdivision (b) requires Metro to reimburse the owner for actual relocation costs if pipelines beneath streets are required to be relocated because of Metro's projects.

Subdivision (b) of section 30631 provides, “[t]he use of the streets, highways, freeways, and other public places by [Metro] for any of the purposes permitted herein is presumed to be no greater burden on adjoining properties than the uses existing as of August 22, 1964. If facilities, other than state highways or freeways referred to above, (including, but not limited to, streets, highways, pipelines, sewers, water mains, storm drains, poles, communications wires, and electric transmission wires) of another public agency, of the state, or of a private owner are necessarily required to be relocated, replaced, or altered in order for [Metro] to construct or operate its system, or if the construction or operation by [Metro] of its system makes necessary the relocation, replacement, or alteration of any of those facilities of another public agency, of the state, or of a private owner in order to maintain the functioning of the facilities at their previous level of service, the facilities shall be relocated, replaced, or altered with reasonable promptness by the respective public corporation, state, or private owner and [Metro] shall, by prior agreement, reimburse the public corporation, state, or private owner for the actual cost necessarily incurred in the relocation, replacement, or alteration.”

In the past, when Metro or its predecessors engaged in construction projects requiring the relocation of SoCalGas's pipelines, Metro routinely reimbursed SoCalGas's costs. (See Pasadena Metro Blue Line Construction Authority v. Pacific Bell Telephone Co. (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 658, 662 (Pasadena Metro) [previously, Metro routinely agreed to pay costs of utility relocations].)

4. The ROW at Arbor Vitae Street and Redondo Boulevard.

The Arbor Vitae/ROW intersection and the Redondo/ROW^[2] intersection are subject to the following property interests:

(a) ATSF Pipeline Licenses.

Prior to Metro's involvement, ATSF granted pipeline licenses to SoCalGas permitting it to use ATSF's right of way at Arbor Vitae Street for an annual nominal fee. The licenses were issued in 1975, 1965, and 1952 for various pipelines at the Arbor Vitae intersection. They provided that they were given “upon the express condition that the same may be terminated at any time by either party upon ten (10) days' notice in writing to be served upon the other party, stating therein the date that such termination shall take place, and that upon the termination of this license in this or any other manner herein provided, Licensee, upon demand of Licensor, shall abandon use of the PIPE LINE and remove the same and restore the right of way and tracks of Licensor to the same condition in which they were prior to the placing of the PIPE LINE thereunder. In case Licensee shall fail to restore Licensor's premises as aforesaid within ten (10) days after the effective date of termination, Licensor may proceed with such work at the expense of Licensee.”^[3] These licenses were assigned to Metro as part of its purchase of the ROW.

On August 28, 2015, Metro informed SoCalGas that its pipeline in the Redondo intersection, for which there was no license, conflicted with the LAX/Crenshaw construction and must be relocated. From November 2015 to February 2016, Metro terminated the licenses with respect to the Arbor Vitae intersection and notified SoCalGas that its pipelines conflicted with the LAX/Crenshaw construction and must be relocated. Metro rejected SoCalGas's claim for relocation costs.

After receiving no response from SoCalGas regarding the termination notices, on February 2, 2016, Metro advised SoCalGas that “[a]t this point, Metro requests the immediate removal of these facilities [at Arbor Vitae] from within Metro's [ROW] in accordance with the attached Termination Notices. Please be aware that [SoCalGas's] failure to timely respond to the Notices of Termination is in direct violation of the terms of the License Agreements....” SoCalGas responded that where it had existing facilities installed in the public ROW with no license, i.e., the Redondo/ROW intersection, Metro was responsible to reimburse it under section 30631. Where there was a license, i.e., the Arbor Vitae/ROW intersection, the...