United States Ninth Circuit

In an action claiming that plaintiff has lost and is continuing to lose natural gas stored in its Elk Basin Storage Reservoir due to the operation of gas production wells owned by defendants, dismissal of the action is affirmed where: 1) the condemnation claim was properly dismissed, but on the ground that it failed to state a claim; 2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim; and 3) state law claims were properly dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. A natural gas company may not condemn additional property that is not specifically described in its existing certificate of public convenience and necessity (CPCN), even if the natural gas company seeks to acquire such property in order to operate and maintain an existing storage facility.

Appellate Information

• Argued 02/05/2008
• Decided 05/09/2008
• Published 05/09/2008

Judges

• IKUTA, Circuit Judge:, Before:  RAYMOND C. FISHER, RONALD M. GOULD, and SANDRA S. IKUTA, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Ninth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Robert T. Hall, III (argued) and Andrea Wolfman, Thelen Reid Brown Raysman & Steiner LLP, Washington, D.C., for the plaintiff-appellant., Jon Metropoulos and Dana L. Hupp, Gough, Shanahan, Johnson & Waterman, Helena, MT, for the plaintiff-appellant.


• For Appellees:
  
• W. Scott Mitchell and Jason S. Ritchie, Holland and Hart LLP, Billings, MT, for the defendants-appellees., Patrick R. Day (argued), Holland and Hart LLP, Cheyenne, WY, for the defendants-appellees.