Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-01842/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-01842-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 240
Nature of Suit: Torts to Land
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Torts to Land

---

UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL 

on 

MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

IN RE: SFPP, L.P., RAILROAD PROPERTY RIGHTS

LITIGATION MDL No. 2647

ORDER DENYING TRANSFER

Before the Panel: Plaintiffs in one action in the Central District of California move under

28 U.S.C. § 1407 to centralize this litigation in that district. This litigation currently consists of three

actions pending in three districts, as listed on Schedule A. Since the filing of the motion, the Panel

has been notified of twelve potential tag-along actions against the same defendants. All actions 1

allege that the Union Pacific Railroad Company unlawfully granted easements in the subsurface

below its railroad lines to the Kinder Morgan entities to install and operate a petroleum pipeline

through six states, without payment to the adjacent landowners who allegedly are the true owners

of the subsurface rights. 

Plaintiffs in all actions on the motion and the related actions support centralization in either

the Northern or Central District of California. All defendants oppose centralization. Alternatively,

they request centralization in the Northern District of California or the District of Arizona.

On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing session held, we conclude that centralization

will not serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses or further the just and efficient conduct

of the litigation. Although these actions do share certain factual issues regarding the Railroad’s

alleged grant of easements to Kinder Morgan for the installation and operation of a petroleum

pipeline, the key issue, as plaintiffs’ acknowledge, is legal in nature – specifically, the scope of the

Railroad’s rights in the subsurface under the applicable Congressional land grants. Seeking a

uniform legal determination, though, generally is not a sufficient basis for centralization. See In re:

Real Estate Transfer Tax Litig., 895 F. Supp. 2d 1350, 1351 (J.P.M.L.2012).

Moreover, the circumstances of this litigation indicate that voluntary coordination is a

practicable and preferable alternative to centralization. Plaintiffs in the actions on the motion and

the potential tag-along actions are represented principally by three groups of counsel. The

defendants are the same in all actions, and they have represented that they intend to coordinate the

litigation in the six involved states. Given the few involved counsel and limited number of actions,

informal coordination of discovery and pretrial motions should be practicable. See In re: Chilean

SFPP, L.P., formerly known as Santa Fe Pacific Pipelines, Inc. and Southern Pacific 1

Pipelines, Inc.; Kinder Morgan Operating L.P. “D”; and Kinder Morgan G.P., Inc. (collectively,

Kinder Morgan); and Union Pacific Railroad Company (the Railroad).

Case 4:15-cv-01842-PJH Document 44 Filed 08/11/15 Page 1 of 3 Case MDL No. 2647 Document 41 Filed 08/10/15 Page 1 of 3
-2-

Nitrate Products Liab. Litig., 787 F. Supp. 2d 1347, 1347 (J.P.M.L. 2011). Additionally, all actions

are in their infancy, which will further facilitate coordinated pretrial proceedings.

Although plaintiffs believe that the number of actions is likelyto expand, the mere possibility

of additional actions does not convince us that centralization is warranted. Moreover, the present 2

record does not support plaintiffs’ conclusory assertions. Since the filing of the motion, only twelve

potential tag-along actions have been filed, and eleven of those were filed by the three groups of

counsel who support centralization. Their putative statewide class complaints presently cover all

potentially affected landowners in the six states at issue, suggesting that additional complaints are

unlikely.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion for centralization of the actions listed on

Schedule A is denied.

 PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

 

 Sarah S. Vance

 Chair

Marjorie O. Rendell Charles R. Breyer

Lewis A. Kaplan Ellen Segal Huvelle

R. David Proctor Catherine D. Perry

See In re: Intuitive Surgical, Inc., Da Vinci Robotic Surgical Sys. Prods. Liab. Litig., 883 2

F. Supp.2d 1339, 1340 (J.P.M.L.2012) (denying centralization, noting that “[w]hile proponents

maintain that this litigation may encompass ‘hundreds’ of cases or ‘over a thousand’ cases, we are

presented with, at most, five actions.”).

Case 4:15-cv-01842-PJH Document 44 Filed 08/11/15 Page 2 of 3 Case MDL No. 2647 Document 41 Filed 08/10/15 Page 2 of 3
IN RE: SFPP, L.P., RAILROAD PROPERTY RIGHTS

LITIGATION MDL No. 2647

SCHEDULE A

District of Arizona

CLEMENTS, ET AL. v. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, ET AL.,

C.A. No. 4:15-00191

Central District of California

PHILLIPS, III, ET AL. v. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, ET AL.,

C.A. No. 8:15-00718

Northern District of California

RIVERA v. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 4:15-01842

Case 4:15-cv-01842-PJH Document 44 Filed 08/11/15 Page 3 of 3 Case MDL No. 2647 Document 41 Filed 08/10/15 Page 3 of 3