Gas Transmission Northwest LLC v. Cochrane Extraction Partnership

[7] 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [10] 11 GAS TRANSMISSION NORTHWEST No. 2:21-cv-01513-JAM-AC LLC AND TUSCARORA GAS 12 TRANSMISSION COMPANY, 13 Plaintiffs, ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY 14 v. 15 COCHRANE EXTRACTION PARTNERSHIP, COCHRANE 16 EXTRACTION PLANT LTD., INTER PIPELINE EXTRACTION LTD., AND 17 INTER PIPELINE LTD., 18 Defendants. [19] 20 Before the Court is Cochrane Extraction Partnership, 21 Cochrane Extraction Plant Ltd., Inter Pipeline Extraction Ltd., 22 and Inter Pipeline Ltd.’s (collectively, “Defendants”) motion to 23 stay the instant action filed by Gas Transmission Northwest LLC 24 and Tuscarora Gas Transmission Company (“Plaintiffs”) until the 25 resolution of a related suit in Canada. Defendants request the 26 Court exercise its jurisdiction to stay the instant case pursuant 27 to the principles of Colorado River Water Conservation District 28 v. United States, 424 U.S. 800 (1976). See Mot. to Stay 1 (“Mot.”), ECF No. 40. Plaintiffs oppose the motion. See Opp’n, 2 ECF No. 44. Defendants replied. See Reply, ECF No. 45. 3 For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES 4 Defendants’ motion.1 [5] 6 I. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 7 Plaintiff Gas Transmission Northwest LLC is a Delaware 8 limited liability company operating a natural gas pipeline system 9 in Idaho, Washington, and Oregon; Plaintiff Tuscarora Gas 10 Transmission Company is a Nevada general partnership operating a 11 pipeline system in Nevada and California. Compl., ECF No. 1 12 ¶¶ 8-9, Mot. at 4. Defendants are Canadian entities operating an 13 energy infrastructure business that processes, transports, and 14 stores energy products across Western Canada. Compl. ¶¶ 10-12, 15 Mot. at 3. On August 23, 2021, Plaintiffs filed suits against 16 Defendants in this district and Alberta, Canada, stemming from 17 Defendants’ alleged use of chemical MEA-triazine to treat gas at 18 their Cochrane Extraction Plant in Canada; the treated gas then 19 allegedly travelled through Plaintiffs’ pipelines in Idaho, 20 Washington, Oregon, Nevada, and California, causing damage to 21 Plaintiffs’ pipeline infrastructure. See Compl. In the Canadian 22 suit, Plaintiffs have brought claims of negligence, negligent 23 misrepresentation, strict liability, and nuisance; in the instant 24 case, Plaintiffs have brought claims of nuisance, negligence, 25 negligent misrepresentation, and trespass. Mot. at 2-3. The [26] 27 1 This motion was determined to be suitable for decision without oral argument. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g). The hearing was scheduled 28 for May 9, 2023. 1 Canadian lawsuit also includes additional plaintiffs Nova Gas 2 Transmission Ltd., Foothills Pipe Lines Ltd., Foothills Pipe 3 Lines (Alta) Ltd., and Foothills Pipe Lines (South B.C.). Id. at 4 3. Defendants allege that the two lawsuits share similar 5 language, underlying facts, and requests for relief. Mot. at 3. 6 Also, Defendants allege that the Canadian suit has completed 7 discovery and has progressed to the deposition stage. Id. 8 On January 24, 2022, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss 9 the complaint. See Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 22. A couple of 10 months later, Defendants filed an amended motion to dismiss, 11 seeking dismissal on several grounds. See Amended Mot. to 12 Dismiss, ECF No. 27. The Court granted Defendants’ motion in 13 part, specifically dismissing Plaintiffs’ negligent 14 misrepresentation claim as untimely, and denied the rest of the 15 motion. Order, ECF No. 32 at 19. Following the filing of the 16 Court’s Order on the motion to dismiss, Defendants filed their 17 motion to stay the instant case. [18] 19 II. OPINION 20 A. Judicial Notice 21 Defendants ask the Court to take judicial notice of nine 22 documents. See Req. for Judicial Notice (“RJN”), ECF No. 40-3. 23 Plaintiffs do not oppose the request. 24 Under Federal Rule of Evidence 201, a district court may 25 take judicial notice of a fact that is “not subject to reasonable 26 dispute because it can be accurately and readily determined from 27 sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” Fed. R. 28 Evid. 201(b)(2). A court may therefore take judicial notice of 1 court filings and other matters of public record. Reyn's Pasta 2 Bella LLC v. Visa USA, Inc., 442 F.3d 741 , 746 n.6 (9th Cir. 3 2006). 4 The Court grants Defendants’ request for judicial notice for 5 all requested documents pursuant to Rule 201. However, as to 6 Exhibit A, Plaintiffs’ Statement of Claim, “it is well-settled 7 that allegations in pleadings are not evidence.” Juniper 8 Networks Inc., v. SSL Services, LLC, No. C08-5758 SBA, 2009 WL 9 3837266, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Nov 16, 2009). For this reason, the 10 Court takes notice of the fact that a certain complaint was filed 11 in Alberta, Canada, but the Court declines to take notice of any 12 allegations contained within the complaint for the truth of the 13 facts asserted. 14 B. Legal Standard 15 “A district court has broad discretion to stay proceedings 16 as an incident to its power to control its own docket.” Clinton 17 v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997). However, a district court 18 has a “virtually unflagging obligation” to exercise jurisdiction 19 over federal cases, including those involving parallel state 20 litigation, absent a showing of “exceptional circumstances” such 21 that deferring to the state court would “clearly serve a 22 countervailing interest.” Colorado River, 424 U.S. at 813, 817 ; 23 Minucci v. Agrama, 868 F.2d 1113, 1115 (9th Cir. 1989). 24 The Ninth Circuit has outlined eight factors a court must 25 consider when assessing the appropriateness of a Colorado River 26 stay: (1) which court first assumed jurisdiction over any 27 property at stake; (2) the inconvenience of the federal forum; 28 (3) the desire to avoid piecemeal litigation; (4) the order in 1 which the forums obtained jurisdiction; (5) whether federal law 2 or state law provides the rule of decision on the merits; 3 (6) whether the state court proceedings can adequately protect 4 the rights of the federal litigants; (7) the desire to avoid 5 forum shopping; and (8) whether the state court proceedings will 6 resolve all issues before the federal court (the “parallelism” 7 factor). Seneca Ins. Co., Inc. v. Strange Land, Inc., 862 F.3d 8 835 , 841–42 (9th Cir. 2017). These factors are examined in a 9 “pragmatic, flexible manner with a view to the realities of the 10 case at hand.” Id. at 842. Any doubt as to whether a factor is 11 applicable should be resolved against a stay. R.R. St. & Co. 12 Inc. v. Transp. Ins. Co., 656 F.3d 966, 979 (9th Cir. 2011). The 13 Ninth Circuit has stated that this analysis applies to 14 proceedings in foreign jurisdictions as well and that foreign 15 courts are owed no greater deference than state courts. 16 Neuchatel Swiss Gen. Ins. Co. v. Lufthansa Airlines, 925 F.2d 17 1193, 1195 (9th Cir. 1991). 18 The Ninth Circuit has further held that a district court may 19 grant a stay under Colorado River only if it has “full confidence 20 that the parallel state proceeding will end the [federal] 21 litigation;” this factor is dispositive. Intel Corp. v. Advanced 22 Micro Devices, Inc., 12 F.3d 908, 913 (9th Cir. 1993). 23 C. Analysis 24 1. Resolution of All Issues Before the Court 25 Defendants’ motion is notably silent on whether or not the 26 Canadian suit will resolve all issues before this Court. 27 Plaintiffs contend that a stay cannot be granted because there is 28 substantial doubt that the Canadian suit will resolve all issues 1 in the instant case. Opp’n at 9. Plaintiffs argue that the 2 Canadian suit contains parties that are not present in the 3 instant case and that each suit has a claim absent in the other; 4 the instant case contains a trespass claim and the Canadian case 5 contains a strict liability claim. Id. at 9-10. Plaintiffs also 6 argue that Canadian law has different standards of proof and 7 damage awards. Id. at 10. In their reply brief, Defendants 8 respond that the two suits are parallel because they are 9 substantially similar in that both suits cover the same relevant 10 conduct, involve the same relevant parties, and have nearly 11 identical claims. Reply at 5. The Court disagrees and finds 12 that the suits are not parallel. 13 The Ninth Circuit has stated that parallelism is a necessary 14 condition for a stay under Colorado River because such a stay 15 “necessarily contemplates that the federal court will have 16 nothing further to do in resolving any substantive part of the 17 case.” Intel Corp., 12 F.3d at 913 . In the instant case, the 18 parties do not dispute that this suit contains a substantive 19 claim that is not present in the Canadian case: trespass. The 20 Canadian suit cannot resolve the trespass claim because 21 Plaintiffs have not raised that claim in the Canadian forum; 22 therefore, there exists substantial doubt that the Canadian suit 23 will resolve all of the disputed issues in the instant case, 24 precluding the grant of a stay. See United States v. State Water 25 Res. Control Bd., 988 F.3d 1194, 1208 (9th Cir. 2021) (finding 26 that a stay was not appropriate because the “state proceeding 27 [could not] resolve the United States’ intergovernmental immunity 28 claim because the United States [had] not raised such a claim in eee ee ee OS EI I OO EO 1 that forum.”). 2 2. Remaining Factors 3 The Court need not consider the remaining Colorado River 4 factors, because the issue of parallelism is dispositive. [5] 6 Til. SANCTIONS 7 This Court issued its Order re Filing Requirements (“Filing 8 Order”) on August 24, 2021. ECF No. 3-2. The Filing Order 9 limits reply memoranda to five pages. Filing Order at 1. The 10 Filing Order also states that an attorney who exceeds the page 11 limit must pay monetary sanctions of $50 per page. Id. 12 Defendants exceeded the Court’s five-page limit on reply 13 memoranda by one page. See Reply. The Court therefore ORDERS 14 Defendants’ counsel to pay $50.00 to the Clerk for the Eastern 15 District of California no later than seven days from the date of 16 | this Order. [17] 18 Iv. ORDER 19 For the reasons set forth above, the Court DENIES 20 Defendants’ motion to stay. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 Dated: July 28, 2023 [23] opens JOHN A. MENDEZ 25 SENIOR UNITED*STATES DISTRICT JUDGE