Sample Farms LLC et al v. ConocoPhillips Company

Filing 13

ORDER denying 12 Motion for TRO. Defendant to respond to 11 Motion to Remand within 7 days. Signed by Honorable Timothy D. DeGiusti on 3/24/2015. (mb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
SAMPLE FARMS, LLC, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
CONOCOPHILLIPS COMPANY,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CIV-15-231-D

ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion to Extend Temporary Restraining
Order [Doc. No. 12]. Plaintiffs ask the Court to continue in effect beyond the 14-day limit
of Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b), a temporary restraining order (TRO) issued in state court before the
case was removed to federal court. They designate their request, filed shortly before the
close of business on March 19, 2012, as an “emergency” because the TRO would expire by
operation of Rule 65(b)(2) on March 20, 2015, unless an extension is granted.
Upon consideration of the Motion, the Court finds an insufficient showing of “good
cause” to authorize an extension of the TRO under Rule 65(b)(2). Plaintiffs state that “good
cause” in this context “requires a showing that the grounds for granting the TRO continue
to exist” (citing Flying Cross Check, LLC v. Central Hockey League, Inc., 153 F. Supp. 2d
1253, 1260 (D. Kan. 2001)), and they incorporate by reference their original motion, filed
in state court on August 28, 2004, and the supporting affidavit of Jim Sample bearing the
same date. See Emergency Motion, ¶¶ 10-11. These materials describe a situation very
different from the one now in existence. At the time, Defendant had given notice to Plaintiffs

that it intended to terminate deliveries of natural gas used for agricultural purposes on
September 1, 2014. Plaintiffs then had “hundreds of acres of irrigated corn in production
which require[d] water from irrigation wells fueled by natural gas provided by Defendant,”
and the announced termination of natural gas deliveries would “result in irreparable damage
to Plaintiffs’ corn crops by depriving the crops of water for the remainder of the growing
season.” See Sample Aff. [Doc. No. 12-3], ¶¶ 7-8. Thus, the TRO was originally entered
based on an immediate threat of irreparable injury to growing crops. Plaintiffs have not
shown a current threat to terminate deliveries or any likelihood of injury to growing crops.
Plaintiffs also make an unsupported allegation that supplying natural gas to irrigation
units now will build the water profile in Plaintiffs’ fields.1 This need, and any alleged injury
related to it, is unexplained, except by a conclusory statement that building the water profile
in the soil is important due to dry summers experienced in the Oklahoma panhandle. Further,
Plaintiffs request an extension continuing “until such time as this Court rules on Plaintiffs’
request for a temporary injunction.” See Motion, ¶ 14. The maximum extension authorized
by Rule 65(b)(2) is a second 14-day period, unless Defendant consents to a longer period.2
To date, Plaintiffs have not filed a motion for a preliminary injunction pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 65(a), so it is unlikely that one will be resolved within 14 days.
1

Plaintiffs also note that, if litigation continues, irrigation water will again be needed for growing
season. This possibility clearly does not present an immediate danger.
2

Rule 65(b)(2) limits the duration of a TRO to 14 days unless the court “extends it for a like period
or the adverse party consents to a longer extension.” Although the Tenth Circuit has not spoken on this issue,
“the language of Rule 65(b)(2) and the great weight of authority support the view that 28 days is the outer
limit for a TRO without the consent of the enjoined party.” See H-D Michigan, LLC v. Hellenic Duty Free
Shops S.A., 694 F.3d 827, 844 (7th Cir. 2012).

2

Finally, Plaintiffs also filed on March 19, 2014, a motion to remand the case to state
court based on an alleged lack of subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, as
asserted by Defendant. Plaintiffs contend complete diversity of citizenship does not exist and
the amount in controversy requirement is not met. If Plaintiffs are correct, this Court lacks
power to grant them injunctive relief. See Reliance Ins. Co. v. Mast Const. Co., 84 F.3d 372,
376 (10th Cir. 1996). To avoid placing Plaintiffs’ case in jurisdictional limbo, the time
period for Defendant to respond to the remand motion will be shortened.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion to Extend
Temporary Restraining Order [Doc. No. 12] is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant shall respond to Plaintiffs’ Motion to
Remand [Doc. No. 11] within 7 days from the date of this Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 24th day of March, 2015.

3