Equitrans, L.P. v. 0.56 Acres More or Less of Permanent Easement, 145 F. Supp. 3d 622

Equitrans holds a 1960 right‑of‑way agreement to place a pipeline on the Moores’ land; a jury in prior litigation found two segments of the pipeline lay outside that 1960 right‑of‑way (about 0.56 acres) and constituted trespass or breach.
The district court stayed any ejectment so Equitrans could seek condemnation under the Natural Gas Act, 15 U.S.C. § 717f(h).
Equitrans filed a § 717f(h) condemnation complaint alleging it holds a FERC certificate, needs the right‑of‑way to operate the interstate pipeline, and was unable to acquire the right‑of‑way by contract after negotiation.
The Moores answered, asserted counterclaims (vexatious litigation and trespass), and moved to dismiss the condemnation complaint on multiple grounds.
Equitrans moved to dismiss the Moores’ counterclaims; the court analyzed Rule 71.1(e) (condemnation procedure) and whether counterclaims are permitted in such proceedings.
The court denied the Moores’ motion to dismiss the condemnation complaint and granted Equitrans’ motion to dismiss the counterclaims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Equitrans pleaded a valid § 717f(h) condemnation claim	Complaint alleges FERC certificate, public use (pipeline), and failed negotiations	Condemnation unavailable because of 1960 contract, prior unauthorized entry, bad faith	Plea sufficient; complaint survives Rule 12(b)(6)
Whether prior occupation or failure to seek condemnation before entry bars § 717f(h) relief	Prior occupation does not preclude later condemnation; Equitrans attempted negotiations	Equitrans acted in bad faith and entered property before seeking rights	Prior unauthorized occupation does not preclude condemnation; allegations of attempted negotiation accepted at pleading stage
Whether condemnation was a compulsory counterclaim in the underlying suit	Condemnation matured only after jury found pipeline outside 1960 right‑of‑way	Moores say Equitrans waived claim by not pleading it earlier	Not compulsory: condemnation claim matured later and is factually/legal distinct
Whether Rule 71.1(e) permits counterclaims in condemnation proceedings	Counterclaims are not pleadings but are claims for relief; Rule 71.1(e) permits only objections/defenses in the answer	Counterclaims barred because Rule 71.1(e)(3) allows only an answer and no other pleadings	Court: counterclaims are barred under Rule 71.1(e) because they are not objections/defenses to the taking; dismissal of counterclaims granted

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (plausibility standard for complaints)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading must state plausible claim)
Searl v. School Dist. No. 2 of Lake County, 133 U.S. 553 (prior unauthorized occupation does not bar later condemnation)
Hawaii Housing Auth. v. Midkiff, 467 U.S. 229 (public use standard: rational relation to conceivable public purpose)
Fed. Power Comm’n v. Natural Gas Pipeline Co. of Am., 315 U.S. 575 (NGA is a valid exercise of Congress’s commerce power)
Zinkand v. Brown, 478 F.3d 634 (elements for judicial estoppel; bad‑faith requirement)
Thatcher v. Tenn. Gas Transmission Co., 180 F.2d 644 (condemnation power under NGA furthers public interest)