Davilla v. Enable Midstream Partners L.P.
913 F.3d 959
10th Cir.2019Background
- Enable Intrastate Transmission owned a natural gas pipeline crossing a 1901 Indian allotment in Anadarko, Oklahoma; the Secretary of the Interior granted a 20-year easement in 1980 that expired in November 2000.
- The United States holds legal title in trust; roughly three dozen individual Native American Allottees hold equitable title and did not approve renewal of a new right-of-way; the Bureau of Indian Affairs cancelled Enable’s renewal application.
- Enable continued to operate and keep the buried pipeline after the easement expired; five Allottees (minority interests) signed consent forms for a new right-of-way but did not constitute a majority.
- The Allottees sued for trespass and sought removal of the pipeline; the parties stipulated most facts and the district court granted summary judgment for the Allottees and entered a permanent injunction ordering removal.
- The Tenth Circuit affirmed summary judgment (trepass proven as a matter of law) but reversed the permanent injunction and remanded for an equity balancing under federal injunctive standards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Enable committed trespass after easement expired | Allottees: easement expired, they retain right to possession; continued presence is trespass | Enable: minority allottee consents and other defenses (no demand) preclude trespass liability | Held: Trespass liability affirmed — easement expiration established lack of legal right; minority consents do not defeat federal right-of-way statute or trespass claim |
| Whether consent by a minority of allottees defeats trespass | Allottees: federal statute requires majority approval via Secretary; minority consents insufficient | Enable: written consent forms from some allottees create factual dispute about consent defense | Held: Minority consents do not create federal right to remain; adopting Enable’s rule would frustrate federal Indian land policy; summary judgment appropriate |
| Whether Allottees needed to demand removal before suing | Allottees: no separate demand required; expiration itself terminated consent and imposed duty to remove | Enable: no demand — so no duty or notice to remove; citation to Milner | Held: No demand prerequisite; easement terms and Restatement principles terminate consent upon lapse and create duty to remove |
| Whether district court properly entered permanent injunction ordering removal | Allottees: injunction appropriate to end continuing trespass | Enable: court applied simplified state-law injunction rule; federal equity standards should control and require balancing (irreparable harm, balance of hardships, public interest) | Held: District court erred by issuing injunction based on liability alone; reversed and remanded for federal-equity balancing before awarding injunction |
Key Cases Cited
- Puerto Rico v. Sanchez Valle, 136 S. Ct. 1863 (2016) (background on federal authority over Indian affairs)
- United States v. Lara, 541 U.S. 193 (2004) (federal plenary authority over Indian tribes)
- County of Oneida v. Oneida Indian Nation, 470 U.S. 226 (1985) (federal law governs Indian land relations)
- Pub. Serv. Co. v. Barboan, 857 F.3d 1101 (10th Cir. 2017) (historical discussion of right-of-way statutes over Indian lands)
- Nahno-Lopez v. Houser, 625 F.3d 1279 (10th Cir. 2010) (consent can defeat trespass when it creates the right to occupy)
- Kamen v. Kemper Fin. Servs., Inc., 500 U.S. 90 (1991) (presumption to borrow state law for federal common-law causes of action)
- United States v. Kimbell Foods, Inc., 440 U.S. 715 (1979) (factors for whether to adopt state law or craft federal rule)
- Guaranty Trust Co. v. York, 326 U.S. 99 (1945) (state law cannot always define federal remedies)
- eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388 (2006) (federal standard for permanent injunction requires equitable balancing)
- Amoco Prod. Co. v. Village of Gambell, 480 U.S. 531 (1987) (equitable standards for injunctions in federal statutory contexts)
- Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo, 456 U.S. 305 (1982) (injunctive relief is discretionary and not automatic)
- United States v. Turley, 878 F.3d 953 (10th Cir. 2017) (presumption favoring incorporation of state law into federal common law)
- Kitchen v. Herbert, 755 F.3d 1193 (10th Cir. 2014) (articulation of the three-factor permanent injunction test applied by the Tenth Circuit)