Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC v. Heaster

COLUMBIA GAS TRANSMISSION, LLC, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL P. HEASTER, JR., Defendant.

Crim. Action No. 1:20-CV-238

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA

October 16, 2020

(Judge Kleeh)

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION [DKT. NO. 2], MOTION TO DISMISS [DKT. NO. 9], AND MOTION TO STRIKE [DKT. NO. 16]

Pending before the Court is the Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction [Dkt. No. 2], Defendant's Motion to Dismiss [Dkt. No. 9], and Plaintiff's Motion to Strike [Dkt. No. 16]. For the reasons discussed herein, each of those motions is DENIED.

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On October 2, 2020, Plaintiff Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC, ("Columbia Gas") filed a verified complaint against Defendant Michael P. Heaster, Jr., ("Mr. Heaster") alleging three causes of action: (1) Preliminary Injunction, (2) Permanent Injunction, and (3) Breach of Contract. [ECF No. 1]. On the same day, Columbia Gas filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction [ECF No. 2], wherein it asks the Court to enter a preliminary injunction to enjoin Mr. Heaster as well as any non-parties from preventing Columbia from accessing its pipeline, and requiring Mr. Heaster to unlock the gate, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and any other relief the Court may deem appropriate.¹

On October 8, 2020, Mr. Heaster filed a Motion to Dismiss for failure to join indispensable parties under Rule 12(b)(7) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. [ECF No. 9]. At the October 9, 2020, hearing, the Court heard argument on the Motion to Dismiss and took testimony and documentary evidence on the Motion for Preliminary Injunction. At the hearing, the Court ordered the parties to file supplemental briefs in support of their respective positions on the Motion for Preliminary Injunction on or before 5:00 p.m. on October 14, 2020 and were instructed to include pictures and maps in support to clarify for the Court the morass of referenced roads, paths and rights of way. On October 14, 2020, Mr. Heaster filed "Defendant's Brief in Opposition to PreliminaryInjunction" [ECF No. 12], and Columbia Gas filed "Plaintiff's Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction" [ECF No. 13]. On October 15, 2020, Mr. Heaster filed "Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction" [ECF No. 14].² That same day, Columbia Gas filed "Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction or, in the Alternative, Reply in Opposition to Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's Supplemental Memorandum" [ECF No. 16]. The issues relevant to the Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Strike have been fully briefed and the parties were afforded the opportunity to be fully heard on each of those motions, including offering evidence to the Court. Thus, those motions are ripe for decision.

II. FINDINGS OF FACT

Based on the pleadings and the testimony during the hearing, the Court makes the following factual findings. Defendant Michael P. Heaster, Jr., Charles P. Heaster, Patsy J. Heaster, Clarence B. Connor, Dawn E. Connor, Michael P. Heaster, Keiko A. Heaster,Michael P. Heaster, Jr., and Misty Heaster, are owners of certain real property located in West Union District, Doddridge County, WV, and consisting of approximately 901.72 acres (the "property"). Compl., ECF No. 1, at ¶ 9.

The property is subject to at least five (5) agreements dated January 12, 2018: The Easement and Right-Of-Way Agreement (Compl. Ex. B, Doc. 1-2), Addendum to the Easement and Right-Of-Way Agreement (Compl. Ex. C, Doc. 1-3), Temporary Work Space Easement Addendum (Compl. Ex. D, Doc. 1-4), and Temporary Access Easement with attached Addendum (Compl. Ex. E, Doc. 1-5).³ Id. ¶ 10. These agreements are by and between Columbia Gas and all owners of the property. The Easement and Right-Of-Way Agreement provides Columbia Gas with an easement and right-of-way for the purposes of constructing, inspecting, maintaining, operating, repairing, replacing, altering, changing the size of, upgrading, reconstructing, and removing or abandoning in place one pipeline for the transportation of natural gas on, under, across, or through a strip of land 50 feet in width on the property. Id. ¶ 11. In exchange for execution of the agreements, Mr. Heaster was compensated monetarily. Id. ¶ 18. Specifically, Mr. Heasterreceived $228,000 while the entire amount paid to members of the Heaster family exceeded $650,000.

The Temporary Access Easement executed by Mr. Heaster and Columbia Gas is the agreement most at issue in this case. The Temporary Access Easement gives Columbia Gas "the right, license, liberty . . . and easement to use that certain strip of land located on [the property] described . . . in Exhibit A . . . for the movement of equipment, machinery, vehicles, personnel, supplies and any other purpose associated with the original construction of the Project, including . . . construction of . . . reclamation, mitigation and restoration activities related to [] the Project." See Id. ¶ 13 (Compl. Ex. E, ECF No. 1-5). The Temporary Access Easement commenced on January 12, 2018 and does not terminate until completion of the original construction of the Project, including completion of any reclamation, mitigation, or construction activities. Compl. ¶ 15. The Temporary Access Easement also provides that Columbia Gas has all rights and privileges necessary for the full use of the rights granted by the Temporary Access Agreement. Id. ¶ 14. (Compl. Ex. E, ECF No. 1-5).

The three documents attached as Exhibit A to the Temporary Access Easement contain maps depicting an overview of the Mountaineer Xpress Project. The first attached Exhibit A includes Access Road 010 ("AR 010") and Access Road 011 ("AR 011"). Thatdocument portrays AR 010 and AR 011 splitting into a "Y" shape, with both roads running perpendicular to the proposed pipeline. See ECF No. 1-5 at 8.. Both AR 010 and AR 011 intersect with the proposed pipeline as shown at two distinct points the map. See id. Exhibit A to the Temporary Access Easement also includes a legend to the map, located at the bottom left of the page, defining AR 011 as an "Access Road Centerline" while AR 010 is not so marked. See id. The parties do not dispute Columbia Gas's contractual right to use AR 011; the conflict lies in whether Columbia Gas has a contractual right to use AR 010 under the Temporary Access Easement.

Pursuant to these agreements, Columbia Gas began initial construction and reclamation phases of the Mountaineer Xpress Pipeline: a multi-phase project. Compl. ¶ 16. The final reclamation has not yet been completed, and Mr. Heaster has requested that Columbia Gas perform additional reclamation associated with the construction. Id. The Mountaineer Xpress Pipeline is a thirty-six-inch pipeline with natural gas currently flowing through it at approximately 2.1bcf and at a pressure of 1,400#. Id. ¶ 17.

In 2019,⁴ a slip on the property occurred, and has continued to grow in severity. Id. ¶ 19. On or about September 17, 2020,Columbia Gas began its work to mitigate and repair the slip via AR 010. Id. ¶ 19. On or about October 1, 2020, Mr. Heaster locked the gate to the property on AR 010, which locked out Columbia Gas from access to AR 010 and allegedly locked in several pieces of Columbia Gas's equipment. Id. ¶ 19-20. Columbia Gas alleges that the locked gate further prevents it from accessing the pipeline construction project and prevents it from continuing its mitigation efforts. Id. ¶ 20. Columbia Gas also alleges it is necessary for the gate to be unlocked so that Columbia Gas can stabilize and mitigate the potential damage created by the slip. Id. ¶ 21. The slip is at direct risk of increasing in size and causing negative environmental impacts. Id. ¶ 22.

At the October 9, 2020 hearing, testimony was taken from a variety of witnesses, notably Anthony V. Capp, the Land Project Manager for Columbia Gas. Mr. Capp testified on direct examination that Columbia Gas is faced with no other way to access the slip for repairs other than through AR 010 without creating a significant safety concern. Mr. Capp further testified in rebuttal that if Columbia Gas in fact has a contractual right to use AR 010, the documentation supporting such contention was not presented to the Court or entered into evidence at the hearing. Infact, Mr. Capp testified that there is no agreement in the record before the Court that shows Columbia Gas has an express right to use AR 010. Mr. Heaster's testimony was similar on this issue, further contending that such agreement regarding Columbia Gas's rights to AR 010 was never signed. Further, Defendant's counsel elicited testimony that called into question whether Mr. Heaster owns the "Harper Tract" which AR 010 traverses upon.

Justin Taylor, Pipeline Integrity Engineer for TC Energy, testified that safety hazards were created by Mr. Heaster's locking the gate to AR 010 such as an increased probability of impact on the pipeline itself, possibly causing it to rupture and ignite into flame. Further, because the slip remains open, its condition continues to be unstable, and invites the possibility of retrogressing, causing further damage to the pipeline and environment. John Delachapelle, an associate of Golder Associates, Inc., testified to certain mitigation recommendations, such as unlocking the gate for access to stabilize the slip. He further testified regarding the risks involved in failing to mitigate the slip, such as retrogressing across the pipeline and damaging it.

III. DISCUSSION

A. Preliminary Injunction Standard

A preliminary injunction is "an extraordinary remedy that may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief." Dewhurst v. Century Aluminum Co., 649 F.3d 287,290 (4th Cir. 2011) (quoting Winter v....