Skip to content.
About GPO   |   Newsroom/Media   |   Congressional Relations   |   Inspector General   |   Careers   |   Contact   |   askGPO   |   Help  
 

  FDsys > More Information
(Search string is required)
 

16-2288 - PANHANDLE EASTERN PIPE LINE, COMPANY, L.P. v. PLUMMER et al


Download Files

Metadata

Document in Context
16-2288 - PANHANDLE EASTERN PIPE LINE, COMPANY, L.P. v. PLUMMER et al
March 27, 2018
PDF | More
ORDER - The focus of this lawsuit is two pipelines--the "100 Line" and the "400 Line"--owned by Plaintiff Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company, L.P. ("Panhandle") that, pursuant to a 1931 right of way grant, traverse Defendants Joseph and Deborah Plummer's property in Pittsboro, Indiana ("the Property"). Panhandle alleges that the Plummers have failed to remove various obstructions from the 100 Line right of way as required by two agreements they reached in 1999 (collectively, "the 1999 Agreements"). These include a settlement agreement ("the Settlement Agreement") and an "Amendment of Easement Agreements" ("the Easement Amendment"), which altered the parties' rights to the pipeline rights of way from the terms of the original 1931 grant. Panhandle seeks damages and a permanent injunction prohibiting the Plummers from interfering with Panhandle's rights to the easements. The Plummers have counterclaimed, alleging that the 1999 Agreements were modified by an oral agreement in 2016 and seeking a declaration that Panhandle has abandoned the 100 Line. For the reasons discussed herein, the Court GRANTS IN PART Panhandle's Motion for Summary Judgment, [Filing No. 71], DENIES the Plummers' Motion for Summary Judgment, [Filing No. 65], and DENIES AS MOOT Panhandle's Motion for Sanctions, [Filing No. 74]. For the foregoing reasons, the Court concludes that Panhandle is entitled to summary judgment on all of the Plummers' counterclaims. Panhandle is also entitled to summary judgment on its claims that the Plummers breached the 1999 Agreements, as described above, and has demonstrated its entitlement to $6,000 in damages, costs, and reasonable attorney's fees. However, Panhandle is not entitled to summary judgment on the specific alleged breaches of improperly parking cars on the 100 Line right of way and orally denying access to the 100 Line right of way. Additionally, the Court concludes that Panhandle is entitled to a permanent injunction prohibiting the Plummers from interfering with Panhandle's right to access and clear its rights of way. Therefore, the Court DENIES the Plummers' Motion for Summary Judgment, 65, GRANTS IN PART Panhandle's Motion for Summary Judgment, 71, and ORDERS that which is contained herein. Finally, the Court DENIES AS MOOT Panhandle's Motion for Sanctions, 74, which seeks attorney's fees from Mr. Plummer to compensate for his alleged conduct in discovery. As explained above, Panhandle is entitled to attorney's fees under the Settlement Agreement, and any sanction would be duplicative of the fee award. (SEE ORDER). Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 3/27/2018. (APD)
June 20, 2018
PDF | More
ORDER - On March 27, 2018, the Court granted in part Plaintiff Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company, L.P.'s ("Panhandle") Motion for Summary Judgment and denied Defendants Joseph and Deborah Plummer's Motion for Summary Judgment. [Filing No. 100.] The Court held that the undisputed evidence demonstrated that the Plummers had interfered with Panhandle's rights-of-way and that Panhandle is entitled to a permanent injunction. [Filing No. 100 at 21-24.] The Court ordered Panhandle to "submit a proposed permanent injunction which complies with Rule 65(d)(1)." [Filing No. 100 at 24.] In order to ensure that the Court's permanent injunction meets the Seventh Circuit's standards for specificity and detail, the Court ORDERS the parties, at Panhandle's convenience, to conduct a joint inspection of the rights-of-way at issue to identify the appropriate subjects for injunctive relief. Specifically, the Court ORDERS the Plummers to permit Panhandle's representatives and counsel to access their property in order to conduct the inspection. The Court ORDERS the parties to conduct the required inspection on or before July 31, 2018. Panhandle shall have 14 days following the inspection to file an amended proposed injunction that reflects the findings of the inspection and complies with Rule 65(d)(1). Panhandle's currently-pending Proposed Permanent Injunction 108, which is designated as a motion on the Court's docket, and Motion for Attorney's Fees 109 are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to renewal as set forth above. (SEE ENTRY). Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 6/20/2018. (APD)