in Re Lone Star NGL Pipeline LP and ETP Crude LLC, 11-20-00010-CV

Background

In 2011 Shumway granted an easement limited to natural gas and natural gas liquids; payments went to Shumway and Mary W. Watt/trust.
Lone Star built a 50‑mile pipeline and later conveyed it to ETP, which began transporting crude oil in Jan 2018.
ETP sought amendments to the easement; Watt demanded $500,000 cash + stock; negotiations failed.
Real Parties (Watt heirs and Shumway) sued Relators (Lone Star and ETP) for trespass, breach, fraud, unjust enrichment, and sought a declaration that the easement terminated and an injunction stopping crude transport.
ETP filed a counterclaim to condemn the right to transport crude under Chapter 21 and asked the trial court to fix security to protect the landowners; ETP submitted a low appraisal ($1,111) and Relators offered to post $1,000,000 if required.
Judge Smith denied Relators’ motion to set security and to abate the injunction proceedings; Relators petitioned this Court for mandamus to vacate those rulings.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Real Parties)	Defendant's Argument (Relators)	Held
Whether a district court must set security for a condemnor who files a condemnation counterclaim under §§21.003/21.017 without first following the standard §21.012–.016 procedure	The Standard Procedure applies first; condemnors must comply with §§21.012–.016 before obtaining possession or security	§§21.003 and 21.017 allow a condemnor to assert an alternative condemnation in a pending suit and the court must set security when requested	Court held the district court has jurisdiction and a ministerial duty to set adequate security under §§21.003/21.017/21.064(b) without prior completion of the Standard Procedure; trial court abused discretion by refusing to set security
Whether the Chapter 21 “Alternative Pleadings” mechanism is preempted by the Standard Procedure	Standard Procedure controls; otherwise condemnor could avoid statutory prerequisites	Alternative pleading (Article 3269 predecessor / §21.017) was meant as an alternative, expedited procedure; Standard Procedure does not nullify §21.003	Court held the alternative procedure remains effective; §21.003 gives meaning only if it allows condemnation counterclaims without prior special‑commissioner process
Whether mandamus is an available and adequate remedy for refusal to set security	Mandamus is proper due to irreparable harm and the ministerial nature of setting security under prior authority	Trial court’s error could be remedied on appeal	Court held mandamus is appropriate and historically available to compel setting security; conditional writ granted if court fails to set security by deadline
Whether relators were entitled to an order abating the injunction proceedings until condemnation procedure/security was set	Relators asked to abate injunction proceedings pending condemnation/security	Real Parties argued trial court lacked jurisdiction to set security until Standard Procedure completed	Court denied mandamus relief as to the abatement request; Relators failed to show entitlement to have injunction abated

Key Cases Cited

City of Houston v. Adams, 279 S.W.2d 308 (Tex. 1955) (Article 3269 authorizes district‑court condemnation by cross‑action and allows court to require adequate security)
Brazos River Conservation & Reclamation Dist. v. Costello, 143 S.W.2d 577 (Tex. 1940) (supreme court construing predecessor statute as an alternative, complete procedure permitting expedited condemnation and security)
Jefferson Cty. Drainage Dist. No. 6 v. Gary, 362 S.W.2d 305 (Tex. 1962) (mandamus may compel trial court to set security under the predecessor statute)
Coastal States Gas Producing Co. v. Miller, 329 S.W.2d 853 (Tex. 1959) (predecessor statute covers suits involving condemnation or injunction to prevent use of property)
Amason v. Natural Gas Pipeline Co., 682 S.W.2d 240 (Tex. 1984) (standard condemnation procedure is an administrative hearing before special commissioners followed by judicial proceedings if objections are filed)
Hubenak v. San Jacinto Gas Transmission Co., 141 S.W.3d 172 (Tex. 2004) (describing the two‑part standard condemnation procedure)
Root Co. v. Montgomery Cty. Drainage Dist. No. 6, 584 S.W.2d 500 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 1979) (Article 3269 did not require prior compliance with standard condemnation prerequisites)
In re H.E.B. Grocery Co., 492 S.W.3d 300 (Tex. 2016) (mandamus standards and relator’s burden)
In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124 (Tex. 2004) (trial court has no discretion to misapply the law; mandamus appropriate)
Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833 (Tex. 1992) (mandamus principles regarding legal error in trial court)
Gunn v. McCoy, 554 S.W.3d 645 (Tex. 2018) (statutory construction goal: give effect to legislative intent)
Seals v. Upper Trinity Reg’l Water Dist., 145 S.W.3d 291 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2004) (no judicial jurisdiction over condemnation until objections to special‑commissioners’ award are filed)