BEAUMONT – A Texas appeals court has voided a temporary injunction granted by a lower court to Sunoco and other petroleum entities, finding that the injunction was “overbroad” and had caused millions of dollars in damages to Exxon.
On June 13, Court of Appeals for the Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont justices Scott Golemon, Hollis Horton and Jay Wright decided to overturn the injunction and reverse/remand in part an appeal from Mobil Pipe Line Company and ExxonMobil Pipeline Company, LLC (Exxon), in a lawsuit brought by Sunoco Pipeline, L.P., Orbit Gulf Coast NGL Exports, LLC, and Energy Transfer GC NGL Pipelines, LP (formerly known as “Lone Star NGL Pipeline, LP”).
Wright authored the Court’s opinion in this matter. Energy Transfer owns and operates four pipelines in Liberty County, two of which are 12 and 14 inches in diameter and called "vintage pipelines."
The other two are 20 inches. Exxon, meanwhile, started the Beaumont Connector Pipeline Project to span 57 miles underground and let it move petroleum products to a refining market in Beaumont.
Exxon met with Energy Transfer before construction to discuss Exxon’s easements and their proximity to Energy Transfer’s existing pipelines and easements. Energy Transfer sued Exxon, claiming it refused to comply with safety requirements and that risked damage to Energy's pipelines.
The trial court granted Energy a temporary restraining order. The two sides reached a settlement, which was incorporated into a new TRO. But Energy claimed Exxon was violating its terms by interfering with its easement rights during construction of the Beaumont Pipeline.
That led to Energy being awarded a temporary injunction in 2023, leading to Exxon's appeal.
Wright stipulated that before the instant opinion was issued, Energy Transfer requested dismissal of the case on grounds that the dispute between the parties was moot.
Energy Transfer argued that the construction project at the heart of the injunction was completed, thus rendering the injunction as moot. However, Exxon countered that parts of the temporary injunction are still “active” even after the construction project was completed and it sustained multimillion-dollar damages from the “egregious” injunction.
Wright and his colleagues concurred with Exxon, finding “there are still live controversies to be addressed in the temporary injunction and the appeal is not moot, maintaining our jurisdiction to determine these issues on appeal.”
Within Paragraphs 8(5) and 8(6) of the injunction, Exxon was prevented from:
• Otherwise interfering and preventing plaintiffs from accessing the Vintage Pipelines or Dual 20-inch Pipelines; and
• Engaging in, encouraging or participating in any other activity that interferes with plaintiffs’ use and enjoyment of plaintiffs’ easements associated with the Vintage Pipelines or Dual 20-inch Pipelines.
“According to Exxon, the language in these two paragraphs violates Rule 683 as the general language ‘interfering’ with Energy Transfer’s easement is both ‘vague and overbroad.’ Exxon argues that this language would not be a problem if Energy Transfer maintained exclusive easements, but Exxon owns the pipelines, ‘subject to [Energy Transfer’s] limited partial assignment,'" Wright wrote.
"Exxon states that these assignments, including the Dual 20-inch pipelines noted in the temporary injunction are subject and subordinate to the prior easements of Exxon. Therefore, Exxon argues any prohibition that ‘prohibits or prevents Exxon from ‘interfering’ with [Energy Transfer’s] access or enjoyment of easements is improper.’ Exxon also argues that the temporary injunction violates Rule 683 because it ‘must describe the acts to be restrained in reasonable detail and ‘not by reference to the complaint or other document.’ Exxon contends this is impossible as it requires the review and assessment of extrinsic documents by workers in the field to locate and analyze Energy Transfer’s easements to determine whether Exxon ‘interferes’ with Energy Transfer’s rights."
Energy said the injunction was plainly aimed at preventing obstructions to its pipelines while allowing Exxon to continue construction.
Wright explained that the appeals court “agree[d] with Exxon that Paragraphs 8(5) and 8(6) are not sufficiently specific to comply with Rule 683, in that they do not describe in reasonable detail and by reference to the complaint or other document the act or acts sought to be restrained.”
“Given the easement rights of Exxon and Energy Transfer, along with competing interests of maintaining and use of their easements, specificity is necessary," he wrote.
"Here, it is undisputed that Exxon has its own easements, either in conjunction with, or close to Energy Transfer’s easements, and the prohibition of ‘interfering and preventing’ Exxon from “accessing the Vintage Pipelines or Dual 20-inch Pipelines; and…engaging in, encouraging or participating in any other activity that interferes with plaintiffs’ use and enjoyment of plaintiffs’ easements associated with the Vintage Pipelines or Dual 20-inch Pipelines’ is too vague.
"The temporary injunction fails to provide adequate notice to appellants of the specific acts they are enjoined from performing in terms not subject to reasonable disagreement. We also agree the prohibition in Paragraphs 8(5) and 8(6) are overbroad. It is undisputed that Exxon has a lawful right to conduct activities on its own pipelines within the same corridor and has the right to maintain its pipelines within its easements. The restriction to not interfere with Energy Transfer’s ‘use and enjoyment’ is overly broad.
“Finally, while Energy Transfer argues that the injunction is not overly broad, and that Exxon can locate the pipelines on the ground by physical markers and maps, this action violates Rule 683 as it requires review of extrinsic documents in the field outside the temporary injunction."
Wright and his colleagues concluded that “the trial court’s order violates Rule 683’s mandatory requirements, we declare the temporary injunction order void, dissolve the injunction and remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
Court of Appeals, Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont case 09-23-00075-CV
75th District Court Liberty County, Texas case 23DC-CV-00046
From the Southeast Texas Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com