Jeffery Moore v. Equitrans, L.P.
21-1134
| 4th Cir. | Feb 23, 2022Background:
- In 1960 Equitable Gas obtained a right-of-way across the Moores’ West Virginia hillside; the Moores acquired the property in 1990.
- In the mid-1990s Equitrans replaced pipeline segments and laid new pipe beside the old, and in 2012 the Moores discovered two pipeline segments offset about 15 feet from the right-of-way.
- The Moores sued asserting breach of the right-of-way agreement, trespass, and sought ejectment or monetary damages; Equitrans removed to federal court.
- A 2015 jury found a violation of the 1960 agreement or trespass but made no remedy finding; Equitrans then pursued and obtained a condemnation judgment for a portion of the land.
- Post-remand, the district court allowed breach and simple trespass claims to proceed but denied leave to add intentional trespass; it later excluded major evidence (including the Moores’ damages expert), barred contract damages, and entered judgment sua sponte for Equitrans on trespass damages.
- On appeal the Fourth Circuit affirmed most rulings (denial to amend, evidentiary exclusions, measure of damages, exclusion of contract damages) but vacated and remanded the sua sponte grant of summary judgment on trespass damages for lack of proper notice.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Moore) | Defendant's Argument (Equitrans) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Leave to amend to add intentional trespass | Amendment should be allowed; intentional trespass was pled/proved or preserved | Late-stage amendment would prejudice defendant and reopen liability after verdict | Denial affirmed: district court did not abuse discretion given trial posture, lack of jury finding on intent, and prejudice from late amendment |
| Proper measure of trespass damages | Moores seek value of the trespass to Equitrans (including portion of defendant profits) | Damages limited to repair cost, diminution in value, loss of use/rental value; no profits where nothing was extracted | Affirmed: West Virginia law limits recoverable damages to repair/diminution/loss of use; profits are not generally recoverable |
| Exclusion of evidence (intent, third‑party agreements, expert Howell) | Evidence was relevant to intent and valuation; expert offered damages methodology | Evidence irrelevant, prejudicial, or unreliable; expert’s methodology unsound and unsupported | Affirmed: court did not abuse discretion excluding intentional‑trespass evidence, unrelated third‑party comparables, and Howell’s testimony under Rules 401/403/702 |
| Sua sponte summary judgment / waiver of damages | Moores lacked notice that they had to present all trespass damages evidence; contract damages were improperly waived by court | Equitrans sought exclusion of damages for failure to disclose; court had authority to enter judgment if notice given | Mixed: exclusion of contract damages affirmed (Moores had notice via motion in limine and failed to disclose admissible contract damages). But sua sponte judgment on trespass damages vacated/remanded because the Moores lacked adequate notice and opportunity to respond |
Key Cases Cited
- Laber v. Harvey, 438 F.3d 404 (4th Cir. 2006) (standards for denying leave to amend and increased district‑court discretion later in litigation)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (court may enter summary judgment sua sponte only after giving notice and opportunity to respond)
- Brooks v. City of Huntington, 768 S.E.2d 97 (W. Va. 2014) (damages for property damage—repair cost, diminution, and loss of use principles)
- Reynolds v. Pardee & Curtin Lumber Co., 310 S.E.2d 870 (W. Va. 1983) (distinguishing innocent and willful/bad‑faith trespass based on intent)
- Bryan v. Big Two Mile Gas Co., 577 S.E.2d 258 (W. Va. 2001) (intent is ordinarily a question for the jury in trespass cases)
- Bethlehem Steel Corp. v. Shonk Land Co., 288 S.E.2d 139 (W. Va. 1982) (reasonable rental value/royalties in mineral lease contexts)
- Matrix Capital Mgmt. Fund, LP v. BearingPoint, Inc., 576 F.3d 172 (4th Cir. 2009) (district court need not fully articulate reasons for denying leave if reasons are apparent)
- Time Warner Ent.‑Advance/Newhouse P’ship v. Carteret‑Craven EMC, 506 F.3d 304 (4th Cir. 2007) (federal courts sitting in diversity should not create or expand state public policy)