Moore et al v. Equitrans, L.P.
Filing
120
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO LIFT STAY; IT IS SO ORDERED plaintiffs motion to lift the stay ECF No. 116 is DENIED. Signed by Senior Judge Frederick P. Stamp, Jr on 3/29/2016. (copy counsel of record)(jmm)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
JEFFERY J. MOORE and
SANDRA J. MOORE,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Civil Action No. 1:12CV123
(STAMP)
EQUITRANS, L.P.,
a Pennsylvania limited
partnership,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO LIFT STAY
I.
The
plaintiffs
alleging
Equitrans,
breach
L.P.
Procedural History
(“the
of
Moores”)
contract
and
(“Equitrans”),
brought
this
trespass.
entered
into
civil
The
a
action
defendant,
right-of-way
agreement in 1960 to place a sixteen-inch pipeline on the Moores’
property. The Moores claimed that Equitrans breached that contract
and
trespassed
on
the
Moores’
property
by
constructing
approximately 700 feet of pipeline outside of the 1960 right-ofway.
After a trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the
Moores, finding that Equitrans either violated the 1960 right-ofway agreement or trespassed by constructing various portions of the
pipeline (approximately 0.56 acres) outside of the 1960 right-ofway.
However, the Moores elected the remedy of ejectment rather
than monetary damages.
Equitrans filed a motion to stay execution
of the judgment so it could seek condemnation of the right-of-way
under the Natural Gas Act.
This Court granted the motion to stay,
contingent on a bond being posted.
Before entering that order,
this Court entered a judgment order finding that Equitrans’s
actions constituted a breach of contract or a trespass.
However,
that judgment order did not include a finding that ejectment was
the proper remedy, but only that ejectment was a possible remedy.
Equitrans then posted a bond agreed upon by the parties, and this
Court stayed the action “until such time as the condemnation action
is resolved or until further order of this Court.”
2.
ECF No. 112 at
Equitrans filed its condemnation action, which is pending
before this Court.
See Civil Action No. 1:15CV106.
the condemnation action is set for June 21, 2016.
The trial for
The Moores then
filed this motion requesting that the stay be lifted.
II.
Applicable Law
District courts possess inherent power to stay litigation
proceedings. See Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254–55 (1936)
(“The power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent
in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its
docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and
for litigants.”).
The exercise of this power is committed to the
sound discretion of the adjudicating court. See Am. Recovery Corp.
v. Computerized Thermal Imaging, Inc., 96 F.3d 88, 97 (4th Cir.
1996).
Generally, where a court has granted a stay, the terms of
the stay order will govern the lifting of the stay.
2
See Bryte v.
Am. Household, Inc., 142 F. App’x 699, 704 (4th Cir. 2005) (“[T]he
stay . . . will be lifted by the terms of the stay order.”); Cnty.
Sch. Bd. of York Cnty., Va. v. A.L., No. 4:03CV174, 2007 WL 756586,
*2 (E.D. Va. Mar. 6, 2007) (“[T]he lifting of a stay is governed by
the terms of the order granting the stay.”).
Thus, a stay order
may set forth a triggering event which would automatically lift the
stay.
See Cnty. Sch. Bd. of York Cnty., Va., 2007 WL 756586, *2
(E.D. Va. Mar. 6, 2007).
However, a court may lift the stay before
the occurrence of the triggering event identified in the stay order
if developments in the case justify the lifting of the stay while
it is in force.
See In re Beebe, 56 F.3d 1384, *3 (5th Cir. 1995)
(citing Landis, 299 U.S. at 258) (observing that courts should
reconsider
the
fairness
of
a
stay
order
in
light
of
new
developments to determine “whether the equities continue to justify
a stay”).
In making such a determination, a court must weigh the
equities and consider the interests of judicial economy and the
desire for “the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.”
Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630 (1962).
III.
Discussion
This Court’s order staying this civil action provides that the
stay will end upon the resolution of the condemnation action.
It
is undisputed that the condemnation action is still pending.
Rather, the Moores argue that this Court should lift the stay in
this case for two reasons.
First, the Moores argue that this
3
Court’s memorandum opinion and order denying the Moores’ motion to
dismiss
Equitrans’s
condemnation
complaint
constitutes
a
significant change in this civil action because it effectively
denies the Moores’ request for ejectment. However, in this Court’s
denial of the Moores’ motion to dismiss the condemnation action,
this Court simply concluded that Equitrans stated a claim for
condemnation under the Natural Gas Act.
There is no judgment yet
in the condemnation action that would definitively affect this
civil action.
Thus, judicial economy will be best served by
reserving a determination on the proper remedy in this civil action
until the condemnation action is fully resolved.
Second, the Moores argue that the stay in this civil action
has “resulted in an inequity to the Moores” because allowing the
condemnation claim has deprived the Moores of the ejectment remedy.
The Moores note that they cannot seek damages for the breach of
contract or trespass in the condemnation action because they are
entitled only to the fair value of the right-of-way. However, this
Court expressly reserved a determination on whether ejectment is a
proper remedy in this civil action until the condemnation action is
fully resolved.
The Moores will not be prejudiced by continuing
the stay because this Court has not made a determination about what
remedy may be appropriate in this civil action.
Further, judicial
economy will be best served by continuing the stay until the
condemnation action is fully resolved, as compensation for the
4
right-of-way in the condemnation action may fully compensate the
Moores in this action.
Additionally, Equitrans argues that this Court should not lift
the stay because the Moores seek to claim monetary damages, a
remedy that Equitrans argues was abandoned by the Moores and that
judicial
estoppel
bars
the
Moores
from
requesting
damages.
However, this Court need not make a determination at this time
regarding whether the Moores may now seek monetary damages, as the
stay will remain in place.
This Court continues to reserve a
determination on the appropriate remedy until the stay is lifted.
IV.
Conclusion
The balance of the equities and the interests of judicial
economy weigh in favor of continuing the stay of this civil action.
Accordingly, the plaintiffs’ motion to lift the stay (ECF No. 116)
is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
The Clerk is DIRECTED to transmit a copy of this memorandum
opinion and order to counsel of record herein.
DATED:
March 29, 2016
/s/ Frederick P. Stamp, Jr.
FREDERICK P. STAMP, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
5
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?