Enbridge seeks federal jurisdiction in oil pipeline dispute

Trial Coverage

The Canadian company argued that a 2019 lawsuit filed in a state court by Attorney General Dana Nessel should be heard by U.S. District Judge Janet Neff, who last month retained jurisdiction over a separate case initiated by the state of Michigan to halt the flow of oil through Enbridge’s Line 5.

“We are hopeful that the attorney general will agree that it makes sense for her case and the Enbridge case to be decided by the federal court rather than risk duplicative litigation and inconsistent results,” spokesman Ryan Duffy said.

But Nessel said the “outrageous maneuver” violates a federal rule that moving cases from one court to another must be done within 30 days of the initial filing.

“We will address this flagrant attempt to undermine that process in court and remain fervently committed to our belief that the fate of Michigan’s greatest natural resources should be determined in a Michigan court,” Nessel said.

Enbridge’s gambit was the latest twist in a multi-year political and legal battle over Line 5, which carries about 23 million gallons (87 million liters) daily of crude oil and natural gas liquids between Superior, Wisconsin, and Sarnia, Ontario.

It passes through northern Wisconsin and Michigan’s Upper Peninsula and is part of an Enbridge network transporting Canadian crude to refineries in both nations.

A 4-mile (6.4-kilometer) section is divided into two pipes that cross the bottom of the Straits of Mackinac, where Lake Michigan and Lake Huron meet. Environmental groups and Indigenous tribes contend they risk a spill that could pollute hundreds of miles of water and shorelines, while Enbridge says they’ve never leaked and are in sound condition.

Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer ordered Enbridge in November 2020 to close the 68-year-old line, revoking a 1953 state easement allowing its placement in the straits. The company, based in Calgary, Alberta, filed a federal lawsuit and ignored the Democratic governor’s May 12 shutdown deadline.

Nessel, who had sued in state court to enforce Whitmer’s order, urged Neff to return the case to state court. But the judge ruled last month that it was “properly in federal court” because it raises issues “under consideration at the highest levels of this country’s government.”

They include Canada’s invocation of a 1977 treaty with the U.S. involving oil shipments between the two nations and federal pipeline safety regulation, Neff said.

Whitmer and Nessel responded this month by dropping their 2020 lawsuit and refocusing attention on the 2019 case filed in Michigan’s Ingham County. It argues that Line 5′s presence in the straits violates the public trust and state environmental law.

Related listings

  • Detroit-area couple in court over control of frozen embryos

    Detroit-area couple in court over control of frozen embryos

    Trial Coverage 06/04/2018

    A Detroit-area woman seeking custody of as many as 10 frozen embryos is asking a judge to appoint a guardian over them while she clashes with her former partner for control.Gloria Karungi and Ronaldlee Ejalu have a daughter who has sickle cell diseas...

  •  Court: No right to copy court reporter’s recordings

    Court: No right to copy court reporter’s recordings

    Trial Coverage 10/30/2017

    Georgia’s highest court says the makers of a popular podcast series do not have the right to copy audio recordings made during a murder trial by a court reporter.The second season of the “Undisclosed” podcast featured the case of Jo...

  • Indian court sentences 2 men to death in 1993 Mumbai blasts

    Indian court sentences 2 men to death in 1993 Mumbai blasts

    Trial Coverage 10/11/2017

    An Indian court on Thursday sentenced two men to death and two others to life in prison for a series of bombings that killed 257 people in Mumbai in 1993. A fifth man was given 10 years in prison.The five men were convicted earlier of criminal conspi...

Grounds for Divorce in Ohio - Sylkatis Law, LLC

A divorce in Ohio is filed when there is typically “fault” by one of the parties and party not at “fault” seeks to end the marriage. A court in Ohio may grant a divorce for the following reasons:
• Willful absence of the adverse party for one year
• Adultery
• Extreme cruelty
• Fraudulent contract
• Any gross neglect of duty
• Habitual drunkenness
• Imprisonment in a correctional institution at the time of filing the complaint
• Procurement of a divorce outside this state by the other party

Additionally, there are two “no-fault” basis for which a court may grant a divorce:
• When the parties have, without interruption for one year, lived separate and apart without cohabitation
• Incompatibility, unless denied by either party

However, whether or not the the court grants the divorce for “fault” or not, in Ohio the party not at “fault” will not get a bigger slice of the marital property.

Business News

New York Adoption and Family Law Attorneys Our attorneys have represented adoptive parents, birth parents, and adoption agencies. >> read
DuPage IL worker's comp lawyers Since 1962, the law firm of Krol, Bongiorno & Given, Ltd. has been a leader in the field of workers’ compensation law in DuPage, Illinois. >> read