Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company LP v. Gray et al

Filing 85

ORDER & OPINION Entered by Judge Joe Billy McDade on 11/25/13 granting 65 Motion for Default Judgment as to Defendant Luke Matarelli and granting 66 Motion for Default Judgment as to Defendants Clyde I. Petty and Karen L. Petty. Plaintiff if awarded a permanent injunction as described herein. (See written order). (TK, ilcd)

E-FILED

Monday, 25 November, 2013 01:29:09 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
PEORIA DIVISION
PANHANDLE EASTERN PIPE LINE
COMPANY, L.P.,
Plaintiff,
v.
HARRY GRAY, SHIRLEY HADLEY,
EDITH NICHOALDS, WILLIAM
NICHOALDS, LUKE R. MATARELLI,
GENE R. BOWERS, VIRGINIA S.
GILLETT, KAREN L. PETTY, and
CLYDE I. PETTY,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 11-cv-1333

ORDER & OPINION
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment as
to Defendant Luke Matarelli (Doc. 65), and Motion for Default Judgment as to
Defendants Clyde I. Petty and Karen L. Petty (Doc. 66). As explained below, the
pending Motions are granted, and Plaintiff is awarded a permanent injunction as
described herein.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Plaintiff filed the present action on September 2, 2011. In the First Amended
Complaint, Plaintiff alleges the need for injunctive relief to access and clear a
portion of land pursuant to an easement to which Defendants’ fee simple is subject.
(Doc. 22). The matter is in this Court because of diversity of the parties. As noted in
the Court’s previous Order (Doc. 74) taking these Motions under advisement,

Defendants Luke Matarelli, Clyde Petty, and Karen Petty have been properly
served and have not appeared in this action, nor have they filed any response to the
pending Motions against them. Default was entered against these Defendants on
August 27, 2013. Plaintiff filed the instant Motions for Default Judgment on June
17, 2013. A hearing was held on the Motions on November 18, 2013, at which
Plaintiff presented argument on the appropriate remedy and introduced two
exhibits: an Affidavit of Darin F. Pilgrim (“Pilgrim Affidavit”) and an Affidavit of
Troy A. Yackle (“Yackle Affidavit”). Defendants also did not appear at the hearing,
of which they had notice. Plaintiff seeks to have this Court enter judgment against
Defendants pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)(2). (Doc. 45 at 1). It
seeks an injunction to allow it to remove the obstructions on Defendants’ properties
and enjoy its easement rights.
As a preliminary matter, Plaintiff filed declarations under penalty of perjury
affirming that none of the Defendants are in military service. (Docs. 82, 83). This
satisfies the requirement that the Court obtain such an affidavit before entering
judgment against an individual who has not appeared. See 50 U.S.C. app.
§ 521(b)(4). Thus, the Court is able to enter judgment for Plaintiff against
Defendants.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND1
Plaintiff is a company engaged in transporting natural gas through
underground pipelines, including through a pipeline it calls the Canton Lateral
This background information is drawn from Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint,
as the facts relating to liability therein are taken as true, as well as the exhibits
presented at the hearing, which are uncontested.

1

2

which runs underneath Defendants’ properties. Defendants are residents of Peoria
County, Illinois. Defendant Matarelli owns real estate at 7330 West East Branch
Drive, Bartonville, Illinois. Defendants Clyde Petty and Karen Petty (“Petty
Defendants”) own real estate at 7322 West East Branch Drive, Bartonville, Illinois.
Both of these properties were apparently once part of the same parcel of land,
owned by Joseph and Bessie Shoup. (See Yackle Aff. 11-12.)
The Shoups granted to Central Pipe Line Company an easement evidenced
by a document entitled “Agreement for Right-of-Way.”2 (Yackle Aff. 11). The
document was executed on October 21, 1933, and was properly recorded. It grants to
Central Pipe Line Company, and thereby to Plaintiff as a successor in interest by
assignment from the original easement holder, “the right to lay, maintain, alter,
repair, replace, operate and remove at any time hereafter a pipe line for the
transportation of natural gas . . . with the right of ingress and egress to and from
the same on, over and through” the described property, which includes what is now
Defendants’ properties. (Yackle Aff. 11). Defendants acquired their properties
subject to this easement. In the document, there is no description of a specific
easement width or exact location of where the pipeline was to be placed. As
contemplated by the easement, a pipeline was at some point constructed across the
land Defendants now own.

Under Illinois law, “a right of way is an easement.” Kurz v. Blume, 95 N.E.2d 338,
339 (Ill. 1950). The Court will primarily use the synonymous and more familiar
term “easement” throughout this Order.
2

3

Plaintiff must inspect its pipelines to ensure safety and to comply with
federal regulations. In particular, as is industry practice, Plaintiff intends to inspect
the pipelines aerially. Trees and structures on the easement impede Plaintiff’s
inspection and maintenance operations, and can prevent efficient repair in the
event of an emergency. Further, tree roots can damage the pipelines. In February
2011, Plaintiff notified Defendants of its general plans to clear trees, brush,
vegetation, and man-made obstructions on or encroaching on its easement to allow
for inspection and maintenance of its pipeline pursuant to its easement across
Defendants’ properties. Despite Plaintiff’s multiple attempts to obtain permission to
enter the property for clearing operations, Defendants denied Plaintiff the right to
enter.
Plaintiff seeks to clear trees and structures located within twenty-five feet of
the center of the pipeline. On Defendant Matarelli’s property, Plaintiff seeks to
remove the following obstructions: a tree six feet from the pipeline, a tree that is
twenty-three feet away, two bushes located twelve and fourteen feet from the
pipeline, a group of additional trees and brush located twenty-two feet from the
pipeline, a porch fourteen feet from the center of the pipeline, and the canopies of
two other trees that are outside the twenty-five foot range because Plaintiff asserts
the canopies encroach upon the area it needs clear for inspection and maintenance
purposes. On the Petty Defendants’ property, Plaintiff seeks to remove five trees,
located one foot, eight feet, sixteen feet, ten feet, and twenty-one feet away from the

4

center of the pipeline; a group of bushes approximately ten feet away from the
pipeline; and a porch that is seventeen and a half feet away from the pipeline.3
ANALYSIS
Default was entered against these Defendants on August 27, 2013.
Defendants’ liability is thus established, and is no longer in controversy. e360
Insight v. Spamhaus Project, 500 F.3d 594, 604 (7th Cir. 2007). The well-pled facts
of the Complaint relating to liability are taken as true. Dundee Cement Co. v.
Howard Pipe & Concrete Prods., Inc., 722 F.2d 1319, 1323 (7th Cir. 1983). However,
the remedy is determined based on the evidence presented at the hearing. See e360
Insight, 500 F.3d at 604. The evidence presented in this case is all uncontroverted.
A district court ruling on a motion for default judgment enjoys wide discretion. See
id. at 598.
Under Rule 65(d), an order granting an injunction must include the reasons
it issued, the specific terms, and “describe in reasonable detail—and not by
referring to the complaint or other document—the act or acts restrained or
required.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d)(1). The Seventh Circuit “insist[s] on strict
compliance with these requirements.” United States v. Apex Oil Co., 579 F.3d 734,
739 (7th Cir. 2009). Of course, that is only to the extent such compliance is “feasible
or desirable.” Id. at 740. Before a federal court can award a permanent injunction, a
plaintiff must satisfy four requirements:
The exhibits demonstrate that a portion of the Petty Defendants’ house is also
within the area Plaintiff seeks to clear, (Pilgrim Aff. 3, 21-22), but Plaintiff
represented to the Court at the hearing that it does not seek an injunction allowing
it to remove part of the house at this time.
3

5

(1) that it has suffered an irreparable injury; (2) that remedies
available at law, such as monetary damages, are inadequate to
compensate for that injury; (3) that, considering the balance of
hardships between the plaintiff and defendant, a remedy in equity is
warranted; and (4) that the public interest would not be disserved by a
permanent injunction.
eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388, 391 (2006).
Under Illinois law, an easement is a “right or a privilege in the real estate of
another.” Beloit Foundry Co. v. Ryan, 192 N.E.2d 384, 390 (Ill. 1963). The owner of
an easement is entitled to “necessary use,” which is “such use as is reasonably
necessary for the full enjoyment of the premises.” Erday’s Clothiers, Inc. v.
Spentzos, 592 N.E.2d 615, 621 (Ill. App. Ct. 1992). The owner of the property subject
to the easement, referred to as the servient estate, is still entitled to reasonable use
of the property, but may not interfere with the easement owner’s proper enjoyment
of the easement. Id. The language of the instrument creating the easement should
be construed “in accordance with the intention of the parties.” Koplin v. Hinsdale
Hosp., 564 N.E.2d 1347, 1354 (Ill. App. Ct. 1990). When the width and location of
the easement is not defined, “the width is such as is reasonably convenient and
necessary for the purposes for which the way was created.” Vallas v. Johnson, 390
N.E.2d 939, 941 (Ill. App. Ct. 1979) (internal quotation marks omitted).
In the present Motions, Plaintiff alleges it is entitled to remove all
obstructions

within twenty-five

feet of

the

center

of

the

pipeline.

The

uncontroverted facts show that a permanent injunction is an appropriate remedy in
this case. First, to show injury, Plaintiff points to the current need to inspect its
pipeline, which it cannot do without access to Defendants’ property to clear

6

obstructions. Plaintiff has shown through its uncontested allegations and evidence
that the obstructions that are located near the pipeline interfere with aerial
inspection of the pipeline, and that trees, in particular, may also damage the
pipeline. Thus, Plaintiff’s right to necessary use of its easement is infringed because
it cannot maintain and inspect its pipelines. This constitutes irreparable harm, as
Plaintiff has been injured by interference with its property rights.
Second, Plaintiff has adequately shown through its uncontroverted facts that
there is no adequate remedy at law. Property rights are a prime example of rights
without adequate remedy at law. See, e.g., United Church of the Med. Ctr. v. Med.
Ctr. Comm’n, 689 F.2d 693, 701 (7th Cir. 1982). Monetary damages would not
adequately address Plaintiff’s injury from being unable to enjoy its property rights
and inspect and maintain its pipeline. An undetected leak in a pipeline could delay
maintenance or repair operations and could result in service interruptions. The
costs to Plaintiff of preventing enjoyment of its rights could be immeasurable.
Third, in balancing harms, though Defendants will lose trees, bushes, and
even porches, it is a small loss in comparison with the potential harm to Plaintiff if
it cannot use its easement and is unable to inspect and maintain the portion of the
pipeline running through Defendants’ property. As Plaintiff showed through
affidavits, inadequate inspection can result in safety risks, greater repair expense,
lost revenue, or fines for failure to comply with federal regulations. These harms
outweigh the harms to Defendants, warranting equitable relief.

7

Finally, the public would be served by an injunction, as the pipeline
transports natural gas through the area, and the public has an interest in this
operation being performed in a manner that minimizes the safety and health risks
to the community. Particularly given the federal regulation of this matter, it is clear
the public has an interest in Plaintiff’s being able to enforce its easement rights to
inspect and potentially maintain the pipeline.
Thus, Plaintiff has shown that an injunction is appropriate, but the Court
must still specify the precise terms and scope of the injunction. See In re Energy Coop., Inc., 886 F.2d 921, 930 (7th Cir. 1989) (“Language delimiting the scope of the
injunction . . . should be explicit and unambiguous.”). For many of the same reasons
addressed above, Plaintiff has proven that the structures it complains of impede its
inspection duties and thus its use and enjoyment of its easement rights. Primarily,
the obstructions, including trees, bushes, tree canopies, and the porches, prevent
proper aerial inspection of the pipeline. As a result, Defendants will be enjoined
from stopping the removal of the listed obstructions. The facts in the affidavits and
the First Amended Complaint, which the Court accepts as uncontroverted and
adequately proven, demonstrate these obstructions interfere with Plaintiff’s
reasonable use of the property under the rights pursuant to its easement. It also
logically follows that Plaintiff will need access to these features to remove them,
and Plaintiff’s recorded easement specifically includes the right of ingress and
egress. Thus, Defendants will also be enjoined from preventing Plaintiff’s ingress
and egress for this purpose.

8

To the extent Plaintiff seeks a broader injunction than one prohibiting
interference with removal of obstructions, such as a blanket freedom to remove any
and all structures and vegetation over a fifty-foot strip of land, it is not supported by
the facts. Even though the easement, whose validity is uncontested, imparts on
Plaintiff more expansive rights than the injunction addresses, Plaintiff points to no
further harm at this time that requires an injunction from this Court. The Court
does not find it appropriate to enter an injunction that serves only to reiterate the
language of the easement, as the scope of the terms is subject to interpretation, and
such an injunction would be broader than the specific controversy before the Court.
Rather, on the uncontroverted facts presented by Plaintiff, the Court enters an
injunction that addresses the specific and current injury to Plaintiff, that of the
inability to properly inspect its pipeline due to structures and vegetation that are
too close to the pipeline and blocks aerial view of an adequate width, or the danger
from trees whose roots could damage the pipeline.
CONCLUSION
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment
as to Defendant Luke Matarelli (Doc. 65), and Motion for Default Judgment as to
Defendants Clyde I. Petty and Karen L. Petty (Doc. 66), are GRANTED. Defendant
Matarelli, his agents, and others in active concert or participation with Defendant
Luke R. Matarelli are PERMANENTLY ENJOINED from interfering with
Plaintiff’s entry onto Defendant’s property within twenty-five feet of Plaintiff’s
pipeline running through the property for the specific purpose of removing: one tree

9

located six feet from the pipeline, one tree located twenty-three feet from the
pipeline, two bushes located twelve and fourteen feet from the pipeline, a group of
additional trees and brush located twenty-two feet from the pipeline on the east side
of Defendant’s house, the porch on the north side of the house, and the canopies of
the trees located over twenty-five feet away from the pipeline on the north side of
the pipeline so far as the canopy extends within twenty-five feet of the pipeline.
Defendants Clyde I. Petty and Karen L. Petty, their agents, and others in active
concert or participation with Defendants are PERMANENTLY ENJOINED from
interfering with Plaintiff’s entry onto Defendants’ property within twenty-five feet
of Plaintiff’s pipeline running through the property for the specific purpose of
removing: five trees, located one foot, eight feet, sixteen feet, ten feet, and twentyone feet away from the center of the pipeline; a group of bushes approximately ten
feet away from the pipeline on the west side of the property; and the porch on the
north side of the house. Defendants are also PERMANENTLY ENJOINED from
interfering with Plaintiff’s ingress or egress to and from the specified natural and
manmade obstructions for the purpose of their removal or inspection or other
necessary preparation for removal.

Entered this 25th day of November, 2013.

s/ Joe B. McDade
JOE BILLY McDADE
United States Senior District Judge

10