Saale Family L.P. v. Spire STL Pipeline LLC
| Citation | 425 F.Supp.3d 1082 |
| Decision Date | 27 November 2019 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 4:19-cv-01402-SRC |
| Parties | SAALE FAMILY L.P., et al., Plaintiff(s), v. SPIRE STL PIPELINE LLC, et al., Defendant(s). |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri |
Jordan H. Walker, Sever Storey, LLP, Carmel, IN, Shawn T. Saale, St. Peters, MO, for Plaintiff(s).
Elise Nicole Puma, Paul T. Sonderegger, Thompson Coburn, LLP, St. Louis, MO, for Defendant Spire STL Pipeline, LLC.
Gene J. Brockland, Jr., James D. Maschhoff, Brian M. Wacker, SmithAmundsen LLC, St. Louis, MO, for Defendant Michels Corporation.
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs' Motion for Remand and for Fees [24]. The Court grants the Motion for Remand, and remands this matter back to the Circuit Court of St. Charles County for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The Court denies the motion for fees.
This case involves a dispute between a natural gas company, Spire STL Pipeline LLC ("Spire"), and eight groups of plaintiff landowners. Spire obtained authority from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to construct a natural gas pipeline. The path of the new pipeline will pass through Plaintiffs' properties. Defendant Michels Corporation is Spire's general contractor responsible for constructing the new pipeline. Plaintiffs brought state law tort claims against Spire and Michels alleging that Defendants' pipeline construction activities have resulted in trespass and damage to Plaintiffs' property.
On August 3, 2018, FERC issued to Spire a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity, authorizing Spire to construct and operate a new, 65-mile-long natural gas pipeline system extending from Scott County, Illinois to St. Louis County, Missouri. Doc. 1-1. The proposed course of the pipeline passes through St. Charles County, Missouri. Id. , pg. 3.
Congress, in the Natural Gas Act (NGA), has granted the right of eminent domain for the purpose of pipeline construction to natural gas companies that obtain a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity:
When any holder of a certificate of public convenience and necessity cannot acquire by contract, or is unable to agree with the owner of property to the compensation to be paid for, the necessary right-of-way to construct, operate, and maintain a pipe line or pipe lines for the transportation of natural gas, and the necessary land or other property, in addition to right-of-way, for the location of compressor stations, pressure apparatus, or other stations or equipment necessary to the proper operation of such pipe line or pipe lines, it may acquire the same by the exercise of the right of eminent domain in the district court of the United States for the district in which such property may be located, or in the State courts.
15 U.S.C. § 717f(h).
Beginning on August 15, 2018, Spire, pursuant to its condemnation authority under the Certificate, initiated condemnation proceedings in this Court against a number of parcels of land Spire deemed necessary for construction of the new pipeline.1 Spire's condemnation complaints defined specific proposed easement areas—for permanent easements on the land over which the pipeline will run, for temporary easements on land needed for construction access, or both.2 On September 10, 2018, the Court consolidated the individual condemnation suits into the case Spire STL Pipeline LLC v. 3.31 Acres of Land, More or Less, Situated in St. Charles County, State of Missouri, et al. , No. 4:18-cv-01327-SRC-DDN. Plaintiffs, in this case, are all owners of one or more properties that are the subject of condemnation proceedings in the ongoing consolidated condemnation case.
On December 12, 2018, this Court granted Spire an order of condemnation and issued a preliminary injunction in the consolidated condemnation case, allowing Spire to take immediate "physical possession of the subject parcels of property and [to] begin construction of the subject pipeline" as soon as Spire deposited a surety bond. Doc. 5-28. After paying the requisite bond on December 17, 2018,3 Spire took physical possession of the properties and began construction of the pipeline. While the Court's order of condemnation resolved the issue of Spire's immediate possession of the properties, the amount of just compensation due to Plaintiffs for condemnation of those properties remains pending in the ongoing consolidated condemnation case.
Plaintiffs originally filed the present case in the Circuit Court of St. Charles County on April 26, 2019. Plaintiffs' Complaint does not dispute that this Court granted Spire an injunction in the consolidated condemnation case to access and construct the pipeline on areas of their properties defined by that injunction. Doc. 5, ¶¶ 41, 85, 129, 173, 217, 261, 305, 349. The gravamen of Plaintiffs' Complaint is that Defendants' construction activities within the areas defined by the Court's injunction order are resulting in damage to Plaintiffs' adjoining properties outside those areas. Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants "(1) fail[ed] to properly excavate for the Spire Pipeline in the Injunction Area; (2) fail[ed] to control the run-off from the Injunction Area; (3) ... pump[ed] thousands of gallons of surface water, silt, and other materials from the Injunction Area on to [Plaintiffs' adjoining properties]; (4) ... [left] and/or plac[ed] items, materials, silt, water, and debris on [Plaintiffs' adjoining properties] outside the Injunction Area; (5) ... [went] outside the Injunction Area and onto [Plaintiffs' adjoining properties] for various construction purposes; and (6) ... block[ed] drainage ditches on [Plaintiffs' adjoining properties]." Doc. 5, ¶¶ 42, 86, 130, 174, 218, 262, 306, 350.
Based on these allegations, Plaintiffs assert seven causes of action against Defendants4 :
(1) Taking Beyond Easement - Plaintiffs allege that Defendants "expanded their use of the Landowners' property beyond that which is described in the Injunction" without initiating additional condemnation proceedings or paying appropriate consideration. Doc. 5, ¶¶ 51, 95, 139, 183, 227, 271, 315, 359. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants' unauthorized expanded use violates Missouri Revised Statute § 523.283. Doc. 5, ¶¶ 52, 96, 140, 184, 228, 272, 316, 360.
(2) Trespass - Plaintiffs allege that Defendants "knowingly or by failure to exercise reasonable case [sic], entered the Plaintiffs' property beyond the bounds and terms of the Injunction and Injunction Area without the Plaintiffs' permission." Doc. 5, ¶¶ 57, 101, 145, 189, 233, 277, 321, 365.
(3) Destruction of Crops - Plaintiffs allege that Defendants "either knowingly or negligently damaged or destroyed Plaintiffs' field crop products that were grown for commercial purposes." Doc. 5, ¶¶ 64, 108, 152, 196, 240, 284, 328, 372. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants' knowing destruction of their field crop products violates Missouri Revised Statute § 537.353. Doc. 5, ¶¶ 65, 109, 153, 197, 241, 285, 329, 373.
(4) Statutory Trespass on Realty - Plaintiffs allege that Defendants "cut down, injured, or destroyed Plaintiffs' plants, and cut down Plaintiffs' agricultural products on Plaintiffs' real estate, in which Defendants had no interest or right." Doc. 5, ¶¶ 70, 114, 158, 202, 246, 290, 334, 378. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants' cutting, injuring or destruction of Plaintiffs' plants, in which they had no right, violates Missouri Revised Statute § 537.340. Doc. 5, ¶¶ 71, 115, 159, 203, 247, 291, 335, 380.
(5) Negligence - Plaintiffs allege that "Michels was negligent in the construction of the Spire Pipeline negligently depositing water and silt onto Plaintiffs' land outside the injunction area." Doc. 5, ¶¶ 76, 119, 163, 207, 251, 295, 339, 384.
(6) Respondeat Superior - Plaintiffs allege that "Michels was the agent for and acting on behalf of its principal, [ ]Spire" and that "Spire is liable to the Plaintiffs for all wrongful acts of [ ]Michels" described in the complaint. Doc. 5, ¶¶ 79, 122, 166, 210, 254, 299, 342, 387.
(7) Punitive Damages - Plaintiffs allege that Defendants conduct was "outrageous, willful, wanton, and performed with a malicious culpable state," thereby warranting punitive damages. Doc. 5, ¶¶ 83, 126, 170, 214, 258, 303, 346, 391.
Spire's Notice of Removal alleged that this Court has subject-matter jurisdiction on two bases: 1) federal-question jurisdiction on the basis of preemption, because the case "involves federal condemnation authority provided to Spire by [FERC]," and 2) federal-question jurisdiction based on interpretation of a federal court order, because the case involves "the scope of this Court's Order of Condemnation and Preliminary Injunction." Doc. 1, ¶¶ 2-3.
Regarding preemption, Spire argued that "FERC expressly provides administrative remedies for property owners, like Plaintiffs, to file complaints concerning natural gas pipeline construction and its related effects/damages before the FERC." Id. , ¶ 28. Spire further alleged that some Plaintiffs have filed complaints to FERC "regarding Michels' construction of the Spire STL Pipeline" and that those FERC complaints remain pending. Id. , ¶ 29. Thus, Spire argued, "a federal question is [ ] presented in this case because Plaintiffs' claims are preempted under federal law." Id. , ¶ 33.
Spire also argued that this case presents a federal question because "[t]he allegations of Plaintiffs' claims place squarely at issue the scope and terms of this Court's...Order granting the Preliminary Injunction." Id. , ¶ 21. Citing instances in the complaint where Plaintiffs described Defendants' behavior by referring to the injunction, Spire argued that "[w]here an action requires interpretation of a federal court order...a federal question exists." Id. , ¶¶ 23-24.
Plaintiffs' remand motion argues that...
To continue reading
Request your trial