Texas Eastern Transmission Corp. v. Giannaris, Civ. A. No. 1:CV-93-0248.

• Decision Date: 07 April 1993
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 1:CV-93-0248.
• Citation: 818 F. Supp. 755
• Parties: TEXAS EASTERN TRANSMISSION CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. Konstantinos GIANNARIS and Tina Giannaris, his wife, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of Pennsylvania

818 F. Supp. 755

TEXAS EASTERN TRANSMISSION CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. Konstantinos GIANNARIS and Tina Giannaris, his wife, Defendant.

Civ. A. No. 1:CV-93-0248.

United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania.

April 7, 1993.

Charles W. Rubendall, II, Keefer, Wood, Allen and Rahal, Harrisburg, PA, for plaintiff.

Spero T. Lappas, Harrisburg, PA, for defendants.

MEMORANDUM

RAMBO, Chief Judge.

Before the court is Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction and Defendants' motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). A hearing was held on March 13, 1993, and subsequently briefs were submitted on the issue of whether this court has subject matter jurisdiction over the captioned action. The matter is now ripe for disposition.

Discussion

I. Findings of Fact

1) Plaintiff Texas Eastern Transmission Corporation is a Delaware corporation, registered to do business in Pennsylvania, with its principal place of business in Texas. Plaintiff operates natural gas pipelines, several of which run through Pennsylvania.

2) Plaintiff is the successor in interest to Texas Eastern Penn-Jersey Transmission Corporation "Penn-Jersey".

3) Defendants Konstantinos and Tina Giannaris are Pennsylvania residents who own a parcel of property in Perry County, Pennsylvania.

4) Penn-Jersey purchased from Benjamin and Sara Graybill three right-of-way grants in 1954, 1958, and 1960. These grants gave the Graybills the right to maintain and operate the pipelines laid in the right-of-way. The parties do not dispute the legality of these grants.

5) All three grants provide the following:

the said Grantor does hereby Grant, Bargain, Sell, Convey and Warrant unto Texas Eastern Penn-Jersey Transmission Corporation, a Delaware Corporation (herein styled Grantee), its successors and assigns, a right of way and easement to construct, lay, maintain, operate, alter, repair, remove, change the size of, and replace pipe lines and appurtenances thereto (including without limitation Corrosion Control equipment) for the transportation of oil, gas, petroleum products or any other liquids, gases, or substances which can be transported through pipe lines, the Grantee to have the right to select text crossed out the route under, upon, over and through lands which the undersigned owns or in which the undersigned has an interest ...

6) Defendants purchased the Graybill property.

7) Four of Plaintiff's pipelines, parallel to one another, traverse Defendants' property.

8) Three routes are available to reach the pipelines on Defendants' property:

i. Plaintiff may travel up Township Road and turn left on Barnette Drive. Barnette Drive runs approximately perpendicular to the pipelines. Plaintiff then would proceed through Ms. Anna Cook's property along the pipeline, over several streams, and across a barbed wire fence. The distance from Barnette Drive to the barbed wire fence is approximately three eighths of one mile. Defendants do not object to removal of this fence, but are unsure if they own it. The streams are approximately six to twelve inches in depth; they could be crossed by a four wheel drive vehicle.

ii. Plaintiff could travel up Township Road and turn left on the private lane. The lane runs approximately perpendicular to the subject pipelines. Plaintiff would then cross a small bridge, traverse Defendants' property and then pass around, or through, a fence which lies to the right of the lane. The wooden bridge can not support extremely heavy equipment, but will support pickup trucks.

iii. Plaintiff could go over the mountain, ending up on Defendants' property. This route is about two to three miles in length, is often not accessible and traverses steep inclines.

9) The private lane serves five families who own land in the proximity of the disputed area. Some of the families live on the close side, some on the far side, of the pipelines.

10) The fence off the lane which blocks access to the pipelines was built by agreement by Plaintiff and Defendants to keep out four wheel vehicles from the right-of-way.

11) A locked gate is built into this fence. Plaintiff does not have a key to this lock.

12) The mountain and Barnette Drive routes are longer than using the lane to reach the pipelines.

13) Plaintiff used the lane continually until 1988.

14) Defendants forbid Plaintiff from driving around the locked gate, claiming that that would constitute illegal trespass.

15) The pipeline transports natural gas in a vapor state; this substance is highly flammable and can be both auto- and pilot-ignited.

16) Several means of inspection are utilized in maintaining the pipelines.

17) Aerial inspections, from a very low altitude, are performed, at the minimum, monthly, with the goal of being performed weekly. These inspections are used to detect construction, floods, erosion, or dead vegetation, which may cause, or be indicators of pipeline damage.

18) To determine where pipelines are located, aerial inspections rely on colored posts and mowing lines.

19) Plaintiff also conducts annual pipeline surveys to detect corrosion in the pipelines.

20) Test sites are set up along the pipeline, at intervals less than a mile apart. Each site contains a pipe and wire fixture used for an electrical current analysis which detects corrosion. If the test fails, the site is repaired, and the test is repeated.

21) A site is located on Defendants' property next to the lane. Last year this site was tested and showed problems. Repairs to it are necessary prior to the annual inspection. However, they have not been made because Plaintiff has not had access to the test site.

22) Every ten years, a close interval survey is performed by Plaintiff. This test, which takes place every five feet along the pipeline, uses a machine that probes into the ground, detecting natural gas leakage. The test requires that brush be removed over the pipeline so that the probe can be properly used.

23) The subject right-of-way is not sufficiently cleared of brush so that the close interval test can be performed. This area is due for this test this year.

24) The right-of-way is overgrown with heavy brush and trees, many of which are ten to fifteen feet in height.

25) Plaintiff mows the pipelines on a three year cycle.

26) The right-of-way on Defendants' property is overdue for its mowing.

II. Subject Matter Jurisdiction

A. Introduction

The statute granting federal district courts subject matter jurisdiction over diversity cases provides, in part:

(a) The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $50,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between—

(1) Citizens of different States.

28 U.S.C. § 1332.

Plaintiff seeks only injunctive relief. Thus, the question before the court is how to measure the value of that relief to determine if the minimum amount in controversy is met.

Plaintiff asserts that an injunction is necessary to inspect and maintain the four pipelines traversing Defendants' property, and that a failure to do so could result in a catastrophe—both to the environment and human life. Thus, Plaintiff asserts that the value in obtaining the injunction must be valued by the potential catastrophic harm that could result if inspection and maintenance of the pipeline is impeded. Defendants contend that this valuation is purely speculative, thus not satisfying the burden that one bears to show that jurisdiction properly lies in this court.

B. Standard

Judicial doctrine has established that jurisdictional statutes are to be strictly construed; therefore, the party seeking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of showing that such jurisdiction exists. Gibbs v. Buck, 307 U.S. 66, 72, 59 S.Ct. 725, 729, 83 L.Ed. 1111 (1939). However, a court should not refuse jurisdiction due to an insufficient amount in controversy unless "it ... appears to a legal certainty that the claim is really for less than the requisite jurisdictional amount ..." St. Paul Mercury Indemnity Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283, 289, 58 S.Ct. 586, 590, 82 L.Ed. 845 (1938).

In an action for injunctive relief, the amount in controversy is measured by the value of the interest sought to be protected by the equitable relief requested. Bryfogle v. Carvel Corp., 666 F.Supp. 730, 732 (E.D.Pa.1987). The standard utilized in such cases is flexible. Thus, "the courts appear willing to ease the plaintiff's burden of proving jurisdiction" in cases involving injunctive relief. Taylor v. Sandoval, 442 F.Supp. 491, 495 (D.Colo.1977), citing Sanchez v. Taylor, 377 F.2d 733, 736 (10th Cir.1967) and Martinez v. Richardson, 472 F.2d 1121 (10th Cir.1973).

C. Amount in controversy

A few cases have addressed whether jurisdictional amounts are satisfied where injunctive relief is sought to protect an easement. For example, in Williams Pipe Line Co. v. Mounds View, 651 F.Supp. 544 (D.Minn. 1986), a pipeline accident resulted in the defendant city seeking to enjoin the plaintiff pipeline company from resuming testing or operation of the pipeline; the company also sought to enjoin the city from interfering in its efforts. Id. at 546. The court reasoned that the jurisdictional amount had been satisfied:

Ramsey County seeks to protect its property interest in its right of way; it is unquestionable that this property right is worth far in excess of $10,000. Mounds View asserts an action based on public nuisance; it seeks to protect the safety and property of its citizens. The rights at stake are worth in excess of $10,000.

Id. at 547. While the court did find that the actual value of the disputed property exceeded $10,000, it did not specifically address what that value was, or include appraisal values of the property, and more importantly to the present discussion, the court also gave import to the value of human life and property in its calculation of the jurisdictional amount.

Another helpful case, from the ...