Sfpp, L.P. v. Burlington Northern
Decision Date | 05 August 2004 |
Docket Number | No. F043498.,F043498. |
Citation | 17 Cal.Rptr.3d 96,121 Cal.App.4th 452 |
Parties | SFPP, L.P., Plaintiff, Cross-defendant and Appellant; Kinder-Morgan, Inc., Cross-defendant and Appellant, v. The BURLINGTON NORTHERN & SANTA FE RAILWAY CO., Defendant, Cross-complainant and Respondent. |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, Mark D. Johnson, Costa Mesa, and Matthew S. Urbach, Los Angeles, for Plaintiff, Cross-defendants and Appellants.
Gresham Savage Nolan & Tilden, John C. Nolan, San Bernardino, and Marlene Allen for Defendant, Cross-complainant and Respondent.
A railroad and a pipeline company had a dispute over whether a pipeline existing in the railroad's right-of-way should be moved before the railroad built a second track in the right-of-way. The pipeline company refused to move the pipeline and filed a lawsuit to condemn a five-foot easement around the existing location of the pipeline. The parties agreed to employ a retired judge to decide the case as a referee pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 638 and 644, subdivision (a).1 The referee filed a written statement of decision holding that the proposed easement was not located in the manner most compatible with the greatest public good as required by section 1240.030, subdivision (b) and, accordingly, ruled in favor of the railroad.
The pipeline company appeals, claiming that the referee committed legal errors in applying the condemnation statute and that the decision was not supported by substantial evidence. We conclude that the doctrine of implied findings derived from section 634 is applicable to the statement of decision, that the referee correctly applied section 1240.030, and that the express and implied findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence. Thus, the judgment entered below is affirmed.
Respondent Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company (BNSF) or its predecessor in interest has maintained and operated a railroad main line right-of-way though Central California for over 100 years.
Appellants SFPP, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership (SFPP), and its affiliate Kinder-Morgan, Inc. (Kinder-Morgan), a nationwide petroleum pipeline operator, have a petroleum terminal with storage tanks located in southern Fresno, immediately to the east of BNSF's right-of-way. The terminal is serviced by a pipeline distribution system operated by SFPP. The distribution system includes pipeline located in BNSF's right-of-way.
The facts that led to the dispute between SFPP and BNSF were set forth in the statement of decision as follows:
One of the pipelines servicing SFPP's Fresno terminal is 12 inches in diameter and approaches BNSF's right-of-way from the northwest as it runs parallel to South Golden State Boulevard (12" Line Section 60). The 12" Line Section 60 enters BNSF's right-of-way in the area where the right-of-way intersects with South Golden State Boulevard and runs approximately 5,787 feet south where it leaves the right-of-way and enters SFPP's Fresno terminal. Cover over the 12" Line Section 60 varies from three to nine feet deep.
The pipeline used in delivering jet fuel to the Lemoore Naval Air Station is a multidimensional line (Line Section 119) which leaves the Fresno terminal and runs south on the east side of the right-of-way before turning west, crossing under the track, and exiting the right-of-way. The length of Line Section 119 occupying the right-of-way is approximately 737 feet. Cover over the Line Section 119 varies from seven to 10 feet deep.
BNSF intends to install the second track to the east of its existing track. To make room for the second track, BNSF requested that SFPP move its pipelines to the other side (west) of the existing track. BNSF intends the centerline of the proposed second track to be a minimum of 25 feet from the centerline of the existing track because that distance would allow it to perform maintenance on either line without closing both tracks. Also, BNSF asserts that the second track must be placed to the east of the existing track because the existing track is located near the western edge of two underpasses, and placing the second track to the west of the existing track would require reconstruction of the underpasses at the cost of several million dollars.
SFPP does not dispute this assertion regarding the inadequacy of space for another track on the west side of the existing track, but contends that the proposed track can be added in its intended location without moving the pipelines from their current locations.
A report prepared for CALTRANS by the Parsons Transportation Group states that the 12" Line Section 60 currently is located from eight to 19 feet from the centerline of the proposed second track. The report concludes that locating the pipeline 25 feet from the track would lessen the risk of pipeline rupture and avoid the need to close the proposed track for pipeline maintenance. The report bases its...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Altavion, Inc. v. Konica Minolta Sys. Lab. Inc.
... ... Proc., § 634; see also SFPP v. Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Ry. Co. (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 452, ... ...
-
Schellinger Bros. v. Cotter, A142201
... ... ] have confined most of their construction and development to Northern California where they have been in business for about 35 years. After ... Davenport (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 1507, 1531, 125 Cal.Rptr.3d 292 ; SFPP , L.P. v. Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Ry. Co ... (2004) 121 ... ...
-
Ermoian v. Desert Hosp.
... ... 797, 800 P.2d 1227 (Arceneaux); SFPP v. Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Ry. Co. (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 452, ... ...
-
In re Marriage of Jackson
... ... (See SFPP v. Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Ry. Co. (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 452, ... ...
-
Table of cases
...192 Cal. Rptr. 3d 195, §§5:100, 9:30, 19:130, 20:30, 21:100, 21:120, 21:150 SFPP v. Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Ry. Co. (2004) 121 Cal. App. 4th 452, 17 Cal. Rptr. 3d 96, §4:90 Shadow Traffic Network v. Superior Court (1994) 24 Cal. App. 4th 1067, 29 Cal. Rptr. 2d 693, §20:80 Shandralina......
-
Order of proceedings
...objections may be made to the statement of decision before judgment is entered. SFPP v. Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Ry. Co. (2004) 121 Cal. App. 4th 452, 465, 17 Cal. Rptr. 3d 96. A party who fails to file a written objection to the report or to properly move to set aside the report forf......
-
LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS IN 2004 AFFECTING THE OIL AND GAS EXPLORATION AND PRODUCTION INDUSTRY
...(Cal.App. 2004). [41] California Code of Civil Procedure § 337(1). [42] 16 Cal.Rptr.3d 818; 121 Cal.App.4th 301 (Cal.App. 2004). [43] 17 Cal.Rptr.3d 96; 121 Cal.App.4th 452 (Cal.App. 2004). [44] 9 Cal.Rptr.3d 621; 115 Cal.App.4th 874 (Cal.App. 2004). [45] NPDES Permit No. CAG280000- 69 F.R.......