Exxon brief countered in spill suit

Exxon Mobil's petition to appeal a federal judge's decision granting class-action status to a Faulkner County couple's lawsuit over an oil spill in Mayflower should be denied, attorneys for the couple argued in a federal appeals court.

In the document filed in the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis earlier this week, the attorneys disputed Exxon Mobil's statement last month that a class-action case could put "undue pressure" on the company "to settle in the face of extreme costs and exposure."

"Exxon is the richest company in the world, literally, and it is preposterous to propose that the certification of this class may compel it to settle," the attorneys wrote in Monday's filing.

"In actuality, it would seem that Exxon would welcome the judicial efficiency of a class action as an opportunity to prove, in a single proceeding, that it has complied with all its contractual and legal obligations. In any event, it is safe to say that Exxon is impervious to any 'pressure ... to settle independent of the merits of the [Landowners'] claims,'" the attorneys added, citing another court decision.

The lawsuit resulted from a rupture in Exxon Mobil's Pegasus pipeline on March 29, 2013. The line ruptured between two houses in a Mayflower subdivision and spilled an estimated 210,000 gallons of thick crude in the Northwoods subdivision, drainage ditches and a cove of Lake Conway. The cleanup continues.

The plaintiffs' attorneys, who include Thomas P. Thrash of Little Rock, represent two Faulkner County couples: Rudy and Betty Webb, who live in Conway but own property in Mayflower, and Arnez and Charletha Harper of Mayflower.

Last month, U.S. District Judge Brian Miller ruled in Little Rock that the Harpers but not the Webbs could represent the class of property owners covered by the lawsuit. The Webbs remain plaintiffs. But unlike the Harpers, the Webbs do not legally represent those people who currently own property that is subject to an easement for the Pegasus pipeline and that is physically crossed by the pipeline running from Corsicana, Texas, to Patoka, Ill.

The lawsuit seeks either cancellation of the easements and removal of the pipeline from their property or a requirement that Exxon Mobil replace the pipeline.

Another attorney for the two couples has said lawyers do not know exactly how many people would be covered by the class-action lawsuit, "but it would be in the thousands."

In countering Exxon Mobil's arguments aimed at getting to appeal the order, Thrash and the other attorneys also argued that property owners covered by the class could be "easily identifiable."

"The real estate records of the four states in question will reveal the owners of property subject to Exxon's easements. Further, the Company is required by federal law to maintain a compilation of those in the public affected by its pipeline," the Harpers' attorneys wrote.

Those four states would be Arkansas, Texas, Missouri and Illinois.

Exxon Mobil has also contended that "Federal law expressly pre-empts state safety standards for interstate pipeline transportation."

The Harpers' response countered that the law at issue -- the federal Pipeline Safety Act -- "does not undo the state law contract and property claims brought by Class Members."

The response added, "In order to obtain the easements, Exxon voluntarily undertook to 'repair' and 'maintain' its pipeline. The Landowners are simply attempting to enforce this obligation. The PSA does not obstruct the Landowners' ability to do so, just as it is unconcerned with the operation of general property laws."

State Desk on 09/11/2014