Gerhart v. Energy Transfer Partners, L.P.

ELLEN GERHART, et al., Plaintiffs v. ENERGY TRANSFER PARTNERS, L.P., et al, Defendants v. ELLEN GERHART, Counterclaim Defendant

No. 1:17-cv-01726

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

November 4, 2020

(Judge Kane)

MEMORANDUM

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff and Counterclaim Defendant Ellen Gerhart ("Gerhart")'s motion to dismiss (Doc. Nos. 104) the amended counterclaims (Doc. No. 101) of Energy Transfer Partners, L.P., Sunoco Pipeline, L.P. ("Sunoco Pipeline"), and Sunoco Logistics, L.P. (collectively, the "Energy Companies") for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.¹ For the reasons set forth below, the Court will grant Gerhart's motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 104) the amended counterclaims in part and deny it in part.²

I. BACKGROUND

A. Procedural Background

Plaintiffs commenced this action in September 2017 by filing an eight-count complaintagainst the Energy Companies and various other defendants asserting claims for malicious prosecution, false arrest, abuse of civil process, nuisance, invasion of privacy, trespass, and violations of First Amendment and Equal Protection rights. (Doc. No. 1.) Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in 2018 (Doc. No. 49-1), which the Court dismissed without prejudice in December 2018 (Doc. No. 58).³ Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint (Doc. No. 60), and the Energy Defendants again filed a motion to dismiss, which the Court granted in part (Doc. No. 91). Around the same time, in April 2020, the Energy Companies filed counterclaims asserting three counts against Gerhart pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 13(a). (Doc. No. 92.) Gerhart then filed her pending motion to dismiss the initial counterclaims. (Doc. No. 93.)

In May 2020, the Energy Companies filed amended counterclaims against Gerhart for trespass (Count I); nuisance (Count II); violation of a preliminary injunction (Count III); and violation, breach of, and interference with a right-of-way easement (Count IV). (Doc. No. 101). On June 16, 2020, Gerhart filed the instant motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 104) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Having been fully briefed (Doc. Nos. 106, 107-108) the motion is ripe for disposition.

B. Factual Background⁴

In July 2015, Counterclaimant Sunoco Pipeline initiated condemnation proceedings in Pennsylvania state court to acquire a right-of-way easement ("Easement") on property owned by Stephen and Ellen Gerhart (collectively, the "Gerharts"). (Doc. No. 101 ¶ 2.) Sunoco Pipelinesought the easement for the purpose of installing natural gas pipelines on the Gerharts' property. (Id.) The Gerharts filed preliminary objections to Sunoco Pipeline's declaration of taking ("DOT") in the Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, but the court overruled the preliminary objections. (Id. ¶¶ 7, 9.) The Gerharts appealed that decision. (Id. ¶ 11.) While the appeal was pending, Sunoco Pipeline advised the Gerharts that a crew would begin clearing trees on the easement. (Id. ¶ 12.) Subsequently, in March 2016, environmental activist groups announced on social media that an "event" would take place at the Gerharts' property. (Id.) The Energy Companies allege that activist groups invited people to the Gerharts' property to deter the tree-cutting crews. (Id.) In March 2016, Sunoco Pipeline filed - and the state court granted - a motion for a preliminary injunction. (Id. ¶ 13.)⁵

According to the allegations in the amended counterclaims, a work crew cleared most of the trees from the Easement on March 29 and 30, and April 7, 2016, but were unable to cut down larger trees that activists had climbed and sat atop. (Id. ¶¶ 14, 16.) At some point, law enforcement officials arrested Gerhart and others for violating the preliminary injunction. (Id. ¶ 15.) Meanwhile, Gerhart and the activists allegedly continued to conspire together to block the pipeline installation and, by spring 2017, "had created 'Camp White Pine' on the Gerhart Property" for that purpose. (Id. ¶ 17.)

In May 2017, the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court affirmed the trial court's decision to overrule the Gerharts' preliminary objections to the DOT. (Id. ¶ 19.) The Pennsylvania Supreme Court later denied the Gerharts' petition for allocatur. (Id.) Then, in June 2017, the Court of Common Pleas issued a new preliminary injunction "barring the Gerharts and anyoneworking in concert with them from entering the Easement or engaging in obstructive behavior on the Easement." (Id. ¶ 20); see In re Sunoco Pipeline L.P., No. 1561 C.D. 2018, 2019 WL 2400083, at *5 (Pa. Commw. Ct. May 8, 2019). The Energy Companies allege that, shortly thereafter, Gerhart publicly announced that neither she nor her friends and supporters would abide by the injunction and would instead work to prevent the pipeline's installation. (Doc. No. 101 ¶¶ 21-24.)

Beginning in 2018, when the Sunoco Pipeline survey crew began work at the Easement, Gerhart is alleged to have repeatedly violated the new preliminary injunction by entering the Easement and interfering with the construction work. (Id. ¶¶ 24-55.) Despite being reminded about the preliminary injunction and told to cease interfering with work crews, Gerhart engaged in a course of conduct that caused delays, shut down work for whole days, and attracted bears to the easement, posing a risk to work crews, neighbors, and children, all with the intention of annoying and harassing the pipeline workers. (Id.)

The Energy Companies allege that, because of Gerhart's conduct, Sunoco Pipeline filed a petition for criminal contempt in the Huntingdon County Court of Common Pleas. (Id. ¶ 56.) The court held a hearing and found what Gerhart never disputed on appeal, which is that she violated the preliminary injunction beyond a reasonable doubt by:⁶ (1) setting fires near the Easement; (2) entering onto the Easement and physically obstructing workers, risking workers' safety; (3) entering onto the Easement and obstructing the movement of heavy equipment, causing safety concerns and forcing work to cease to prevent injury to her; (4) spreading rancid materials, including meat, eggs, fruits, vegetables, peanut butter, and cat feces, on trees and onthe ground in the vicinity of the Easement to attract wild animals; (5) throwing a large stick or tree limb onto the Easement near workers; (6) removing survey markers from the Easement and threw them onto her property; and (7) constructing what appeared to be an incendiary device from a plastic bottle and igniting the device at the boundary of the Easement in an attempt to place workers in fear of being injured. See In re Sunoco Pipeline L.P., 2019 WL 2400083, at *2-3. Determining that Gerhart acted with "intentional disregard for the rule of law," the Court of Common Pleas found her in indirect criminal contempt and sentenced her to a $2,000 fine and two to six months' imprisonment. (Doc. No. 101 ¶ 61). On appeal, the Commonwealth Court affirmed the verdict and sentence. See In re Sunoco Pipeline L.P., 2019 WL 2400083, at *5-6.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Federal notice and pleading rules require the complaint to provide the defendant notice of the claim and the grounds upon which it rests. See Phillips v. Cty. of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 232 (3d Cir. 2008). When reviewing the sufficiency of a complaint pursuant to a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), the Court must accept as true all material allegations in the complaint and all reasonable inferences that can be drawn from them, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.⁷ See In re Ins. Brokerage Antitrust Litig., 618 F.3d 300, 314 (3d Cir. 2010). However, the Court need not accept legal conclusions proffered as factual allegations. See Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Rather, a civil complaint must "set out 'sufficient factual matter' to show that the claim is facially plausible." See Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 210 (3d Cir. 2009) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal,556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)).

Consistent with the Supreme Court's rulings in Twombly and Iqbal, the Third Circuit has identified three steps a district court must take when determining the sufficiency of a complaint under Rule 12(b)(6): (1) identify the elements a plaintiff must plead to state a claim; (2) identify any conclusory allegations contained in the complaint "not entitled" to the assumption of truth; and (3) determine whether any "well-pleaded factual allegations" contained in the complaint "plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief." See Santiago v. Warminster Twp., 629 F.3d 121, 130 (3d Cir. 2010) (citation and quotation marks omitted). A complaint is properly dismissed where the factual content in the complaint does not allow a court "to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.

III. DISCUSSION

A. Res Judicata

Gerhart raises the threshold argument that the res judicata doctrine bars the Energy Companies' counterclaims as a matter of law. Res judicata is an affirmative defense that "typically may not afford the basis for a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal unless it is 'apparent on the face of the complaint.'" See Hoffman v. Nordic Naturals, Inc., 837 F.3d 272, 280 (3d Cir. 2016) (quoting Bethel v. Jendoco Constr. Co., 570 F.2d 1168, 1174 (3d Cir. 1978)). This "avoid[s] factual contests at the motion to dismiss stage." Id. Res judicata "serve[s] to preclude a party from pursuing litigation that revisits a claim . . . that has been settled by a previous action[.]" See In re Estate of Plance, 175 A.3d 249, 270 (Pa. 2017). The doctrine "preserv[es] the interest in finality of judicial determinations, prevent[s] endless litigation, and preclud[es] parties fromobtaining the proverbial 'second bite at the apple.'" Id. Under Pennsylvania law,⁸ res judicata precludes a claim "where the former and latter suits possess the following common elements: (1) identity of issues; (2) identity in...