Baatz, et al. v. Columbia Gas Transmission LLC

Filing 29

Opinion & Order signed by Judge James S. Gwin on 5/4/16 denying the defendant's motion to stay the instant case for the reasons set forth in this order. (Related Doc. 27 ) (D,MA)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
-----------------------------------------------------:
RICHARD BAATZ, et al.,
:
:
Plaintiffs,
:
:
vs.
:
:
COLUMBIA GAS TRANSMISSION LLC, :
:
Defendant.
:
:
------------------------------------------------------

CASE NO. 14-CV-505

OPINION & ORDER
[Resolving Doc. 27]

JAMES S. GWIN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:
Plaintiffs, Medina landowners, bring inverse condemnation, Natural Gas Act,1 and related
claims against Defendant Columbia Gas Transmission LLC (“Columbia Gas”) arising from
Defendant’s alleged improper storage of gas beneath Plaintiffs’ properties.2 Defendant seeks a
stay of this case pending the outcome of a Southern District of Ohio case3 where Defendant
named the Medina landowners as counter-defendants.4 Plaintiffs oppose and seek to proceed
with this case.5 For the following reasons, this Court DENIES Defendant’s motion to stay.
I. Background
On March 5, 2014, Plaintiffs filed the complaint in this case.6 Many of the claims are
similar to the previously-filed Wilson case in the Southern District of Ohio. None of the Plaintiffs
in this case were original parties to the Wilson case. Columbia Gas is the defendant in both
cases.

1

15 U.S.C. § 717 et seq.
Doc. 1.
3
Wilson et al. v. Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC, Case No. 2:12-cv-01203-JLG-TPK (S.D. Ohio).
4
Doc. 27.
5
Doc. 28.
6
Doc. 1.
2

Case No. 14-cv-505
Gwin, J.
On April 22, 2014, Defendant Columbia Gas filed an amended counterclaim in the
Wilson case, naming the Medina landowners as counter-defendants.7
On April 23, 2014, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss in this case, citing the first-to-file
rule.
On March 5, 2015, Judge Wells granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss.8 On February 24,
2016, the Sixth Circuit reversed the dismissal and remanded the case.9 The Sixth Circuit held
that the first-to-file rule presumptively applied and suggested that staying this case pending the
outcome of the Wilson case would be the most reasonable next step.
However, when the Sixth Circuit issued its ruling, it assumed the possibility that the
putative class in the Wilson case would be certified under Rule 23 and would absorb the Medina
landowner Plaintiffs. Class certification no longer seems to be possible in the Wilson case.10
In the meanwhile, the district court in the Wilson case has been presiding over piecemeal
settlements and has avoided ruling on dispositive motions during these negotiations.
On April 14, 2016, Defendant moved to stay the proceedings in this case pending the
outcome of the Wilson case. Defendants cite to the reasoning of the Sixth Circuit opinion.
On April 27, 2016, Plaintiffs opposed. Plaintiffs cite to the lack of progress of the Wilson
case, the lack of class certification in Wilson, and the language of the Natural Gas Act in arguing
against the proposed stay.
II. Legal Standard
When the first-to-file rule has been properly raised, a district court presiding over
the second-filed case has four options: (1) dismiss the case without prejudice;11
7

Wilson, Case No. 2:12-cv-01203-JLG-TPK (S.D. Ohio), Doc 275.
Judge Wells presided over this case until March 2015. This Court was randomly assigned to this case following
Judge Wells’ retirement. Non-Document docket entry dated March 17, 2016.
9
Doc. 23.
10
See Wilson, Case No. 2:12-cv-01203-JLG-TPK (S.D. Ohio), Doc 538. Magistrate Judge Abel set a September 11,
2015 class certification motion deadline. That deadline expired with no motion filed and was not extended.
11
Defendant does not seek a dismissal.
8

-2-

Case No. 14-cv-505
Gwin, J.
(2) transfer the second-filed case to the district in which the first-filed case is
pending; (3) stay proceedings in the second-filed case while the first-filed court
decides whether to retain or relinquish jurisdiction; or (4) proceed without
interruption.12
Under Sixth Circuit law,
The first-to-file rule is a well-established doctrine that encourages comity among
federal courts of equal rank. The rule provides that when actions involving nearly
identical parties and issues have been filed in two different district courts, “the
court in which the first suit was filed should generally proceed to judgment.” . . .
District courts have the discretion to dispense with the first-to-file rule where
equity so demands.13
In deciding whether to transfer a case pursuant to the first-to-file rule, the Court looks to three
factors: “(1) the chronology of the actions; (2) the similarity of the parties involved; and (3) the
similarity of the issues at stake.”14
Alternatively, under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), “[f]or the convenience of parties and witnesses,
in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or
division where it might have been brought.” The Sixth Circuit requires “a district court [to]
consider the private interests of the parties, including their convenience and the convenience of
potential witnesses, as well as other public-interest concerns, such as systemic integrity and
fairness, which come under the rubric of ‘interests of justice.’”15
District courts also have discretion to grant stays in cases that have overlapping issues
with earlier-filed cases.16

12

NanoLogix, Inc. v. Novak, No. 4:13-CV-1000, 2013 WL 6443376, at *2 (N.D. Ohio Dec. 9, 2013).
Zide Sport Shop of Ohio, Inc. v. Ed Tobergte Associates, Inc., 16 F. App’x 433, 437 (6th Cir. 2001) (quoting In re
Burley, 738 F.2d 981, 988 (9th Cir. 1984)).
14
Plating Resources, Inc. v. UTI Corp., 47 F. Supp. 2d 899, 904 (N.D. Ohio 1999) (citing Alltrade, Inc. v. Uniweld
Products, Inc., 946 F.2d 622, 625–26 (9th Cir. 1991)).
15
Siegfried v. Takeda Pharm. N. Am., Inc., No. 1:10-CV-02713-JG, 2011 WL 1430333, at *2 (N.D. Ohio Apr. 14,
2011) (quoting Moses v. Bus. Card Express, Inc., 929 F.2d 1131, 1137 (6th Cir. 1991)).
16
See NanoLogix, 2013 WL 6443376, at *3 (collecting cases).
13

-3-

Case No. 14-cv-505
Gwin, J.
Finally, district courts may “proceed[] without interruption . . . when the district court has
determined that the first-to-file rule, either by its own terms or by a quirk of equity, does not
apply.”17
III. Discussion
Though the Sixth Circuit held that the first-to-file rule presumptively applies to this case,
the panel also left this Court the discretion to decide how to proceed with this case. This Court
finds that the equities do not favor staying this case’s proceedings.
Several factors suggest a lack of overlap between the parties and issues in this case and in
Wilson. There is no longer a putative class in Wilson that would incorporate all Ohio landowners,
including the Medina landowners. The Medina landowners are only part of the Wilson case as
counter-defendants, not as named plaintiffs.
Moreover, the Medina Plaintiffs’ properties are all situated in the Northern District of
Ohio and appear to sit over a different gas well from the Wilson plaintiffs. All of the Medina
landowners’ properties are unique and different from the Wilson plaintiffs’ properties. These
individual properties may have claims that require individualized adjudication independent from
the Wilson claims.
Finally, the Sixth Circuit recognized the possibility that the Medina landowners may
bring additional trespass claims that the Wilson plaintiffs have not brought.18 All of the above
factors cut against the likelihood of party and issue overlap. Such lack of overlap favors denying
Defendant’s motion to stay.
This Court also finds that denying Defendant’s motion to stay will lead to a swifter
adjudication of Plaintiffs’ claims. The Medina landowners filed their complaint in March of

17
18

Id. (citing Hertel v. Bank of America, N.A., No. 1:11–CV–757, 2012 WL 4051220 (W.D. Mich. Sept.13, 2012).
Doc. 23 at 14.

-4-

Case No. 14-cv-505
Gwin, J.
2014. In the intervening 25 months, Plaintiffs have not had their claims heard in either the
Southern or Northern Districts of Ohio. This is in part because the Wilson plaintiffs, but not the
Medina landowners, seem to be settling without much district court intervention. Given the
difference in settlement posture between the two groups of plaintiffs, it would seem best for the
Medina landowners to proceed in this forum without the Wilson plaintiffs.
Relatedly, the Medina landowners are only part of the Wilson case because Defendant
Columbia Gas impleaded them through a counterclaim. However, Defendant brought the Medina
landowners into the Wilson case several weeks after the Medina landowners had already filed
this case. In other words, while the Wilson case may have been filed first, the Medina
landowners were part of this case first.
Finally, the venue provisions of the Natural Gas Act favor adjudicating the Medina
landowners’ claims in the Northern District of Ohio. The Act “requires that an eminent domain
proceeding be brought in the district where the property is located.”19 In this case the Medina
landowners’ properties are all situated in the Northern District of Ohio. The Sixth Circuit
recognized—without deciding— that this argument presents a “non-trivial possibility of a
successful jurisdictional challenge,” in the Southern District of Ohio.20 The combination of this
possible challenge, the Wilson court’s lack of dispositive rulings, and a clear grant of statutory
jurisdiction in the Northern District of Ohio favors adjudicating the Medina landowners’ claims
in the Northern District of Ohio.

19
20

Id. at 15 (citing 15 U.S.C. § 717f(h)).
Id.

-5-

Case No. 14-cv-505
Gwin, J.
IV. Conclusion
For the above reasons, this Court DENIES Defendant’s motion to stay. A case
management conference is set for May 31, 2016, at 2:00 p.m.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 4, 2016

s/
James S. Gwin
JAMES S. GWIN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-6-