Rudy Webb v. Exxon Mobil Corporation, 856 F.3d 1150

Background

In 1947–48 Magnolia (now Exxon successors) acquired easements across lands in TX, AR, MO, and IL to install a long oil pipeline; the pipeline now runs ~850 miles and was later reversed/expanded.
Successors-in-interest (Webb and Harper families and others proposed as a class) sued Exxon in 2013, alleging breach of easement contracts by failing to reasonably operate, inspect, maintain, repair, and replace the pipeline; they sought rescission/removal or damages.
The district court initially certified a class limited to current owners with the pipeline physically crossing their land, but later decertified the class and granted summary judgment for Exxon; plaintiffs appealed.
The district court ruled plaintiffs’ contract claims were preempted by the Pipeline Safety Act but also held, alternatively, that Arkansas law does not imply an affirmative maintenance or repair duty in these easements and that plaintiffs showed no actual property damage.
On appeal the Eighth Circuit affirmed: it agreed decertification was proper because individualized issues predominated, and it affirmed summary judgment based on Arkansas precedent rejecting an implied repair/maintenance duty absent express language and for lack of material evidence of unreasonable interference or damages.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Class certification under Rule 23	Pipeline is one continuous unit and Exxon’s uniform operation creates common issues suitable for class treatment	Claims require parcel-by-parcel fact inquiries; multiple state laws apply; class not ascertainable	Decertification affirmed — individualized issues and multi-state law questions predominate; Rule 23(a)/(b)(3) not satisfied
Existence of an implied duty to maintain/repair easement (Arkansas law)	Easement holders have an implied duty of reasonableness to avoid interfering with servient owner’s use and enjoyment; duties can be implied	Easement instrument contains no express maintenance/repair duty; Arkansas precedent forecloses implying such an affirmative duty	Affirmed for Exxon — under City of Crossett, absent express terms, no affirmative duty to maintain/repair is implied
Viability of breach-of-contract/remedy claims (rescission/removal)	Misuse and “bad pipe” support breach and equitable relief (rescission/replacement/removal)	Plaintiffs lack proof of actual damages or unreasonable interference; equitable remedies unavailable under state law facts	Summary judgment affirmed — plaintiffs failed to show breach or actual damages; equitable relief not warranted
Motion to alter/amend based on late/’new’ discovery	Late-produced Exxon documents allegedly contain material new evidence that would change summary judgment outcome	Plaintiffs were not diligent; new evidence is not likely to change the result and is cumulative	Denial affirmed — district court did not abuse discretion; new evidence would not have produced a different outcome

Key Cases Cited

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (class-certification commonality requirements)
Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591 (predominance and manageability in mass tort/class actions)
Smith v. ConocoPhillips Pipe Line Co., 801 F.3d 921 (Eighth Circuit — class failed for lack of common injury in pipeline contamination claim)
Ebert v. Gen. Mills, Inc., 823 F.3d 472 (Eighth Circuit — predominance defeated by property-by-property contamination inquiries)
Day v. Celadon Trucking Servs., Inc., 827 F.3d 817 (class-certification standards and court’s ongoing control)
City of Crossett v. Riles, 549 S.W.2d 800 (Ark. 1977) (no implied affirmative duty to construct/maintain easement absent express language)
Bean v. Johnson, 649 S.W.2d 171 (Ark. 1983) (reciprocal rights; easement holder must not interfere with servient owner’s use)
Jordan v. Guinn, 485 S.W.2d 715 (Ark. 1972) (reasonableness of easement use is a fact question)