PANHANDLE EASTERN PIPE LINE, COMPANY, L.P. v. PLUMMER et al
Plaintiff: PANHANDLE EASTERN PIPE LINE, COMPANY, L.P.
Defendant: DEBORAH L. PLUMMER and JOSEPH F. PLUMMER
Case Number: 1:2016cv02288
Filed: August 26, 2016
Court: US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana
Office: Indianapolis Office
Presiding Judge: Debra McVicker Lynch
Presiding Judge: Jane Magnus-Stinson
Nature of Suit: Real Property: Other
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 Diversity-(Citizenship)
Jury Demanded By: None

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
October 22, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 136 ENTRY - Now pending before the Court is Panhandle's supplemental fee petition, [Filing No. 123], which is fully briefed. In total, Panhandle requests $152,843.90 in fees and $3,583.57 in expenses and costs. The Court has reviewed Pa nhandle's petition and supplement and finds the requested fees, hours, costs, and expenses to be "reasonable" under the Settlement Agreement. The Court awards Panhandle $149,043.90 in attorney's fees and $3,583.57 in costs and expenses for a total award of $152,627.47, which will be incorporated in the judgment contemporaneously entered herewith. (SEE ENTRY). Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 10/22/2018. (APD)
June 20, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 117 ORDER - On March 27, 2018, the Court granted in part Plaintiff Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company, L.P.'s ("Panhandle") Motion for Summary Judgment and denied Defendants Joseph and Deborah Plummer's Motion for Summary Judgment . [Filing No. 100 .] The Court held that the undisputed evidence demonstrated that the Plummers had interfered with Panhandle's rights-of-way and that Panhandle is entitled to a permanent injunction. [Filing No. 100 at 21-24.] The Court or dered Panhandle to "submit a proposed permanent injunction which complies with Rule 65(d)(1)." [Filing No. 100 at 24.] In order to ensure that the Court's permanent injunction meets the Seventh Circuit's standards for specifi city and detail, the Court ORDERS the parties, at Panhandle's convenience, to conduct a joint inspection of the rights-of-way at issue to identify the appropriate subjects for injunctive relief. Specifically, the Court ORDERS the Plummers to permit Panhandle's representatives and counsel to access their property in order to conduct the inspection. The Court ORDERS the parties to conduct the required inspection on or before July 31, 2018. Panhandle shall have 14 days following the inspection to file an amended proposed injunction that reflects the findings of the inspection and complies with Rule 65(d)(1). Panhandle's currently-pending Proposed Permanent Injunction 108 , which is designated as a motion on the Court's docket, and Motion for Attorney's Fees 109 are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to renewal as set forth above. (SEE ENTRY). Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 6/20/2018. (APD)
March 27, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 100 ORDER - The focus of this lawsuit is two pipelines--the "100 Line" and the "400 Line"--owned by Plaintiff Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company, L.P. ("Panhandle") that, pursuant to a 1931 right of way grant, traverse De fendants Joseph and Deborah Plummer's property in Pittsboro, Indiana ("the Property"). Panhandle alleges that the Plummers have failed to remove various obstructions from the 100 Line right of way as required by two agreements they reached in 1999 (collectively, "the 1999 Agreements"). These include a settlement agreement ("the Settlement Agreement") and an "Amendment of Easement Agreements" ("the Easement Amendment"), which altered th e parties' rights to the pipeline rights of way from the terms of the original 1931 grant. Panhandle seeks damages and a permanent injunction prohibiting the Plummers from interfering with Panhandle's rights to the easements. The Plummer s have counterclaimed, alleging that the 1999 Agreements were modified by an oral agreement in 2016 and seeking a declaration that Panhandle has abandoned the 100 Line. For the reasons discussed herein, the Court GRANTS IN PART Panhandle's M otion for Summary Judgment, [Filing No. 71 ], DENIES the Plummers' Motion for Summary Judgment, [Filing No. 65 ], and DENIES AS MOOT Panhandle's Motion for Sanctions, [Filing No. 74 ]. For the foregoing reasons, the Court concludes th at Panhandle is entitled to summary judgment on all of the Plummers' counterclaims. Panhandle is also entitled to summary judgment on its claims that the Plummers breached the 1999 Agreements, as described above, and has demonstrated its enti tlement to $6,000 in damages, costs, and reasonable attorney's fees. However, Panhandle is not entitled to summary judgment on the specific alleged breaches of improperly parking cars on the 100 Line right of way and orally denying acces s to the 100 Line right of way. Additionally, the Court concludes that Panhandle is entitled to a permanent injunction prohibiting the Plummers from interfering with Panhandle's right to access and clear its rights of way. Therefore, the Cour t DENIES the Plummers' Motion for Summary Judgment, 65 , GRANTS IN PART Panhandle's Motion for Summary Judgment, 71 , and ORDERS that which is contained herein. Finally, the Court DENIES AS MOOT Panhandle's Motion for Sanctions, 74 , which seeks attorney's fees from Mr. Plummer to compensate for his alleged conduct in discovery. As explained above, Panhandle is entitled to attorney's fees under the Settlement Agreement, and any sanction would be duplicative of the fee award. (SEE ORDER). Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 3/27/2018. (APD)
Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the Indiana Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: PANHANDLE EASTERN PIPE LINE, COMPANY, L.P. v. PLUMMER et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: PANHANDLE EASTERN PIPE LINE, COMPANY, L.P.
Represented By: A. Richard Blaiklock
Represented By: Ryan John Vershay
Represented By: Thomas A. Withrow
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: DEBORAH L. PLUMMER
Represented By: Nelson A. Nettles
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: JOSEPH F. PLUMMER
Represented By: Nelson A. Nettles
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?