Southern Star Cent. Gas Pipeline Inc. v. Cline

• Decision Date: 16 November 2010
• Docket Number: Case No. 10–2233–JAR/DJW.
• Citation: 754 F.Supp.2d 1257
• Parties: SOUTHERN STAR CENTRAL GAS PIPELINE, INC., Plaintiff,v.Phillip G. CLINE, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Kansas

754 F.Supp.2d 1257

SOUTHERN STAR CENTRAL GAS PIPELINE, INC., Plaintiff,

v.Phillip G. CLINE, Defendant.

Case No. 10–2233–JAR/DJW.

United States District Court, D. Kansas.

Nov. 16, 2010.Opinion Denying Reconsideration Jan. 23, 2011.

Lee E. Urban, Teresa J. James, Martin, Pringle, Oliver, Wallace & Bauer, LLP, Overland Park, KS, Marcia A. Wood, Martin, Pringle, Oliver, Wallace & Bauer, LLP, Wichita, KS, for Plaintiff.Ira Dennis Hawver, Law Office of Dennis Hawver, Ozawkie, KS, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDERJULIE A. ROBINSON, District Judge.

Plaintiff Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc. (“Southern Star”) brings this diversity action against Phillip G. Cline seeking a declaratory judgment that its gas storage lease on Cline's property remains in full force and effect. Southern Star additionally alleges that Cline slandered the title to its property by filing a false affidavit declaring the lease was void. Cline brings a counterclaim against Southern Star seeking termination of Southern Star's gas storage lease and the oil and gas lease, and alleging that Southern Star negligently and intentionally inflicted emotional distress. Cline also lists as a separate count a claim for punitive damages.

This matter is before the Court on Southern Star's Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. 14). Southern Star seeks a judgment on Cline's claims of negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress and request for punitive damages. In Cline's Response to Southern Star's motion, he moves for partial judgment on the pleadings, requesting judgment on Southern Star's slander of title claim (Doc. 16).

For the reasons explained below, the Court grants Southern Star's request to dismiss Cline's negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims and the punitive damages request. The Court denies without prejudice Cline's request to dismiss Southern Star's slander of title claim. Southern Star may file a motion for leave to amend its complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) and D. Kan. Rule 15.1(a)(2).

I. Standard

The court reviews a Rule 12(c) motion under the same standard that governs a Rule 12(b)(6) motion.¹ To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must present factual allegations, assumed to be true, that “raise a right to relief above the speculative level” and must contain “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” ² Under this standard, “the mere metaphysical possibility that some plaintiff could prove some set of facts in support of the pleaded claims is insufficient; the complaint must give the court reason to believe that this plaintiff has a reasonable likelihood of mustering factual support for these claims.” ³ The allegations must be enough that, if assumed to be true, the plaintiff plausibly (not just speculatively) has a claim for relief.⁴ As the Supreme Court has explained, “[a] pleading that offers ‘labels and conclusions' or a ‘formulaic recitation of the elements' of a cause of action will not do. Nor does a complaint suffice if it tenders ‘naked assertion[s]’ devoid of ‘further factual enhancement.’ ” ⁵ Additionally, “[a] claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” ⁶ The court need only accept as true the plaintiff's “well-pleaded factual contentions, not his conclusory allegations.” ⁷

II. Background

Unless stated otherwise, the following facts are alleged by the parties in their Complaint and Counterclaim. The Court will draw all reasonable factual inferences in favor of the nonmoving parties.

Predecessors of Southern Star and Cline executed a gas storage and oil and gas lease on property owned by Cline's predecessors in Jefferson County, Kansas. The lease bound all successors and assigns of the original parties. The lease entitles Southern Star to an extension of the lease as long as the property is necessary or convenient for its underground natural gas storage field. Southern Star began using the natural gas storage field approximately sixty years ago. The disputed leasehold remains an integral part of Southern Star's underground natural gas storage field.

This is the third lawsuit relating to the disputed lease. The first dispute arose in 1995 when Cline challenged Southern Star's lease by alleging that Southern Star's failure to make rental payments invalidated the lease. The suit was settled when the parties stipulated that if Southern Star timely made rental payments the lease would remain in effect. The second dispute arose in 2003. Cline again challenged the lease's validity, this time asserting that Southern Star's failure to provide free natural gas invalidated the lease. He also asserted claims of conversion and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Southern Star on all claims, and the Tenth Circuit affirmed.⁸ Both courts concluded that the statute of limitations barred the tort claims and that the claims failed on their merits.

Cline now asserts that Southern Star did not timely render the 2005 and 2006 rental payments, voiding its lease. Southern Star asserts that a clerical error delayed Cline's rental payments. When Cline received the 2005 and 2006 rental payments from Southern Star on May 25, 2007, he returned them to Southern Star. Cline asserts that he returned the payments to Southern Star because he considered the lease void. He further alleges that Southern Star gave the checks to the Kansas State Treasury Department without telling the agency that Cline had intentionally returned the checks. Cline has since refused to accept the 2007, 2008, and 2009 rental payments.

After Southern Star failed to pay the 2005 and 2006 rental fees, Cline alleges he sent Southern Star a demand for payment and a notice of eviction. Cline claims that Southern Star told him that it was under no legal or ethical obligation to pay Cline, that Cline had no legal recourse, and that it could pay him whenever it saw fit. Southern Star claims that it told Cline that under the terms of the lease and applicable law, the lease remained in full force and effect and warned him not to pursue a third frivolous lawsuit. On May 1, 2007, Cline filed an affidavit with the Jefferson County Registrar of Deeds that stated that the lease was revoked due to Southern Star's failure to timely make rent payments. Southern Star alleges that Cline filed the affidavit with malice. Southern Star asserts that the cloud on Southern Star's title placed in question the validity of Southern Star's natural gas storage rights.

Cline states that Southern Star's failure to pay its lease obligation caused him intense feelings of helplessness and vulnerability. The emotional feelings Cline experienced aggravated his Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (“PTSD”), which he acquired during his Vietnam combat experience. Cline is considered completely disabled.

Southern Star filed a Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings on August 5, 2010. Southern Star asserts in its accompanying memorandum that Cline did not state a valid claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress and that the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim is barred by the statute of limitations. In the alternative, Southern Star asserts that Cline did not state a valid claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Southern Star also requests that the Court deny Cline's request for punitive damages, because such damages cannot be granted absent a valid tort.

In his response to Southern Star's motion, Cline asserts that Southern Star fails to allege sufficient facts to support its slander of title claim. He claims Southern Star did not allege sufficient facts to support that he filed his affidavit maliciously and that the Southern Star failed to allege sufficient damages. Cline moves for dismissal of Southern Star's slander of title claim.

III. DiscussionA. Southern Star's Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings

1. Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress

Southern Star first argues that Cline failed to allege sufficient facts to support his claim of negligent infliction of emotional distress because he failed to allege a physical injury. Negligent infliction of emotional distress requires a sufficient physical injury.⁹

Count III of Cline's counterclaim alleges “Emotional Distress Damages,” without specifying whether Southern Star acted intentionally or negligently. ¹⁰ Southern Star moved for judgment on the pleadings on both claims. ¹¹ Cline asserts in his reply that Southern Star acted with intent and does not dispute that he fails to plead a physical injury.¹² Because Cline fails to plead a physical injury and states that Southern Star acted intentionally, he fails to state a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress. The Court dismisses Cline's negligent infliction of emotional distress claim.

2. Intentional Infliction of Emotional distress

a. Statute of Limitations

Southern Star asserts that Cline's intentional infliction of emotional distress claim is barred by the statute of limitations. Southern Star argues the claim accrued no later than May of 2007 and, therefore, is barred by the two-year statute of limitations. Cline does not argue that he filed the suit within the statute of limitations. Rather, Cline argues that the statute of limitations should either be tolled or not enforced. First, Cline asserts the Court should toll the statute because he did not understand his cause of action during the limitations period and thus, was legally incapacitated. Second, Cline asserts that enforcing the statute of limitations against him would lead to “an intolerable perversion of justice.”

Because Cline does not dispute that he filed his claim beyond the two-year statute of limitations, if the Court concludes he does not suffer from...