Illinois Extension Pipeline Company LLC v. Thomas et al
Filing
13
OPINION entered by Judge Richard Mills on 04/22/2015. SEE WRITTEN OPINION. Upon considering the Notice of Related Case (d/e 10 ), the Court declines to transfer this action pursuant to CDIL-LR 42.1. (DM, ilcd)
E-FILED
Wednesday, 22 April, 2015 04:26:10 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
SPRINGFIELD DIVISION
ILLINOIS EXTENSION PIPELINE
COMPANY, LLC,
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
FREDERICK J. THOMAS, JR., as Co- )
Executor of the Estates of Frederick J. )
Thomas, Sr., Deceased, and Helen R. )
Thomas, Deceased, and CLARENCE )
D. THOMAS, as Co-Executor of the
)
Estates of Frederick J. Thomas, Sr.,
)
Deceased, and Helen R. Thomas,
)
Deceased.
)
)
Defendants.
)
NO. 15-3052
OPINION
RICHARD MILLS, U.S. District Judge:
Plaintiff Illinois Extension Pipeline Company LLC, formerly known
as Enbridge Pipelines LLC, has filed a Notice of Related Case [d/e 10],
stating that pursuant to CDIL-LR 42.1, the instant case is related to a
group of earlier-filed cases pending in the district. On that basis, the
Plaintiff requests that the action be transferred to another judge.
The local rule on consolidation and transfer of related cases provides:
When a party or counsel for a party knows that a newly filed
case is related to another case already pending in the district,
the parties are responsible for bringing the matter to the court’s
attention at the first opportunity but not later than the Rule 16
discovery conference or the first motion hearing, whichever
occurs earliest. Consolidation of the cases will be considered at
that time.
Later-filed cases may be transferred to the judge assigned to the
first-filed suit, regardless of whether the cases are consolidated.
CDIL-LR 42.1. The Plaintiff cites a number of declaratory judgment
actions that were consolidated and assigned by then Chief Judge Michael
P. McCuskey to United States District Judge Harold A. Baker. The lead
case was Enbridge Pipelines (Illinois) LLC v. Preiksaitis, No. 08-cv-2215.
See Order, No. 08-cv-2289, January 12, 2009 Doc. No. 14. The Plaintiff
states that Judge Baker oversaw extensive discovery and motion practice
and eventually granted summary judgment to Plaintiff Enbridge Pipelines
Illinois (now Illinois Extension Pipeline Company, LLC, the Plaintiff here)
in a series of orders entered in 2010. The United States Court of Appeals
for the Seventh Circuit affirmed Judge Baker’s judgments upholding the
1939 pipeline easement. See Enbridge Pipelines (Illinois) LLC v. Moore,
2
633 F.3d 602 (7th Cir. 2011).
Pursuant to a post-judgment motion, Judge Baker entered a
permanent injunction restraining landowners along the pipeline route from
further interference with the Plaintiff’s easement rights.
See Enbridge
Pipelines (Illinois) LLC v. Preiksaitis, No. 3:08-cv-03264, Doc. No. 14
(C.D. Ill. Aug. 4, 2014).
The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have continued to obstruct its
enforcement of its 1939 easement rights which, the Plaintiff states, is why
the Plaintiff filed this declaratory judgment action. The Plaintiff asserts
that because he has handled the other cases, Judge Baker is knowledgeable
of all legal and factual issues pertaining to the 1939 pipeline easement that
is involved in this case. Because Judge Baker is familiar with the facts and
applicable law, the Plaintiff alleges it would be a waste of scare judicial
resources to require another judge to start anew and learn the same issues.
Based on the foregoing and, pursuant to Local Rule 42.1, the Plaintiff
requests that the case be transferred to Judge Baker.
The text of the local rule applies to cases that are pending in the
3
district. See CDIL-LR 42.1. All of the alleged related cases cited by the
Plaintiff have been terminated. Accordingly, the Court finds no basis to
transfer the case.
Additionally, it is worth noting that federal judges are generalists. See
Consolidation Coal Co. v. Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation
Programs, 732 F.3d 723, 728 n.1 (7th Cir. 2013). Although many, if not
most, judges have specific areas of interest and/or expertise, the Court does
not believe that a particular level of competence in a subject area is an
appropriate reason to transfer a case when federal judges must be familiar
with many different fields of law.
Ergo, upon considering the Notice of Related Case [d/e 10], the Court
declines to transfer this action pursuant to CDIL-LR 42.1.
ENTER: April 22, 2015
FOR THE COURT:
s/Richard Mills
Richard Mills
United States District Judge
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?