265 F. Supp. 3d 286
W.D.N.Y.2017Background
- National Fuel Gas Distribution (NFG) supplies natural gas via a ~10,300-foot pipeline to the West Valley Nuclear Service Center, a NYSERDA-owned site where DOE cleanup is ongoing and West Valley (contractor) is the site operator.
- NFG discovered a leak in 2016 in a contaminated area and alleges additional inaccessible leaks; it seeks to perform a controlled shutdown and abandon the pipeline to avoid an uncontrolled failure that could spread contamination.
- NFG sued NYSERDA, DOE, DOE Secretary (Rick Perry), and West Valley seeking injunctive and declaratory relief and asserting breach of contract, a Fifth Amendment takings claim, a procedural due process claim, and a declaratory judgment; it originally filed in state court and then refiled in federal court.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6); DOE and the Secretary also moved for summary judgment; the court heard argument and found the pipeline replacement cost dispute real but held the federal forum inappropriate at this time.
- The court dismissed federal constitutional claims as not ripe (Williamson County ripeness/exhaustion principles), dismissed contract and declaratory claims against DOE and the Secretary for failure to plead a contract binding the federal government, and declined supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ripeness of Takings claim | NFG contends its property/contract rights have been destroyed or are being deprived and equitable relief is needed now to allow a controlled shutdown | Defendants say NFG must first seek compensation via Tucker Act (federal) or state inverse condemnation procedures; claim is premature | Takings claim not ripe under Williamson County; dismissed without prejudice |
| Availability of equitable relief for alleged taking | NFG says equitable/declaratory relief is proper and monetary relief would be inadequate | Defendants invoke precedent that equitable relief cannot circumvent available compensation procedures | Court rejects equitable-exception arguments (Eastern Enterprises, Duke Power, etc. inapplicable); monetary remedies sufficient; equitable relief denied |
| Breach of contract against DOE/Secretary | NFG seeks to terminate supply and claims defendants breached contract | Defendants argue no binding contract with federal government; West Valley is private contractor and cannot bind the U.S. absent authority | Breach claim against DOE and Secretary dismissed for failure to allege a contract binding the federal government |
| Supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims | NFG prefers federal forum for all claims | Defendants argue federal claims dismissed and remaining claims are state-law; no diversity; comity and efficiency favor state court | Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and dismisses remaining state-law claims without prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Williamson County Reg’l Planning Comm’n v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, 473 U.S. 172 (ripeness/exhaustion requirement for takings claims)
- Penn Central Transp. Co. v. New York, 438 U.S. 104 (regulatory takings analysis; framework for regulatory takings)
- Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U.S. 419 (permanent physical occupation is a taking)
- First English Evangelical Lutheran Church of Glendale v. County of Los Angeles, 482 U.S. 304 (compensation remedy for takings and availability of damages)
- Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co., 467 U.S. 986 (equitable relief vs. takings compensation procedures)
- Kurtz v. Verizon N.Y., Inc., 758 F.3d 506 (Williamson ripeness applied to physical takings)
- Cablevision Sys. Corp. v. FCC, 570 F.3d 83 (takings/regulatory framework and burdens)
- Sherman v. Town of Chester, 752 F.3d 554 (futility exception to seeking a final decision under Williamson when administrative process is abused)
- Duke Power Co. v. Carolina Envtl. Study Group, 438 U.S. 59 (Declaratory Judgment Act and pre-enforcement challenges)