16TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT FOR THE PARISH OF ST. MARTIN STATE OF LOUISIANA NO. ___________ DIVISION _______ PETER K. AASLESTAD VERSUS BAYOU BRIDGE PIPELINE, LLC FILED: __________________________ _____________________________ DEPUTY CLERK VERIFIED PETITION FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF Now into court, by and through undersigned counsel, Plaintiff Peter K. Aaslestad files this Verified Petition for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief pursuant to Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure Articles 1871, et seq., and 3601, et seq. Mr. Aaslestad is a landowner who believes that Defendant, and/or Defendant’s agents, employees, contractors, subcontractors, and others at the direction of or on behalf of Defendant, is trespassing upon and damaging his property without express, legal, or implied authorization to do so. Plaintiff seeks immediate protection of this Court against further irreparable damage to and destruction of his property by way of a preliminary and permanent injunction. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff is a co-owner of certain immovable property in St. Martin Parish. Defendant Bayou Bridge Pipeline, LLC (“Bayou Bridge”) is in the process of constructing a 163-mile long crude oil pipeline across eleven parishes in south Louisiana. Defendant’s pipeline route would cross Plaintiff’s property. Plaintiff and his sisters, who co-own the parcel of property at issue, have not granted easements or rights of way to Defendant. Despite this, Plaintiff has evidence to show that Defendant has entered upon the parcel, cleared the stretch of land along its proposed route of trees and other foliage in preparation for pipeline construction, and begun to construct on the property. 1 Plaintiff respectfully requests this court issue, after opportunity for hearing, a preliminary and permanent injunction to prevent Defendant Bayou Bridge Pipeline, LLC from entering onto Plaintiff’s property situated in St. Martin Parish. Plaintiff requests that this Court enjoin Defendant Bayou Bridge Pipeline, LLC from clearing, trenching, stringing, laying pipe, backfilling, tying-in pipeline segments, or performing any other preconstruction or construction-related activities for its pipeline project on Plaintiff’s immovable property. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. This Court has jurisdiction to hear this matter involving immovable property situated in this state pursuant to Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure Articles 8 and 3601, et seq. 2. Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure Articles 43 and 80 because the immovable property which is the subject of this action is situated in St. Martin Parish. PARTIES 3. Plaintiff Peter K. Aaslestad, a resident of Virginia, is a co-owner of the immovable property located in St. Martin Parish which is the subject of this petition and which sits along the Bayou Bridge pipeline route. 4. Defendant Bayou Bridge Pipeline, LLC is a limited liability company organized under the laws of Delaware with a principal office at 8111 Westchester Drive, Suite 600, Dallas, Texas 75225, and authorized to do business in Louisiana, for the purpose of constructing a 163mile pipeline through eleven parishes in Louisiana. RELEVANT FACTS 5. Plaintiff Peter K. Aaslestad, and his siblings Katherine Aaslestad Lambertson, Karen Aaslestad-Aubouy, and Lauren Aaslestad Massey, inherited an undivided interest in the property at issue by judgement of possession in the succession of Erminie Kramer Robichaux. See Judgement of Possession issued in the Parish of St. Mary in the Succession of Erminie Kramer Robichaux (No. 17937, St. Mary Parish, Bk 126, No. 295832, Mar. 15, 2007); and Act of Donation (St. Mary Parish, recorded in Bk 137, page 443, No. 297388, Aug. 8, 2007) (Ex. A). 6. The legal description of the subject immovable property (the “Property”) is as follows: 2 38 acre(s), more or less, located in the NE/4 of the SE/4 of Section 4, Township 11 South, Range 9 East, in St. Martin Parish, Louisiana, and being more particularly described in Book 784, Page 176, Instrument 186257 of the public records of said Parish. 7. Defendant Bayou Bridge Pipeline is in the process of constructing a 24-inch, 163- mile long crude oil pipeline (the “pipeline”) commencing in Lake Charles, Louisiana and terminating in St. James, Louisiana. Defendant’s planned pipeline route crosses through the Atchafalaya Basin in St. Martin and Iberville Parishes, including across the immovable property owned by Plaintiff. 8. Plaintiff has held a real right of ownership in the immovable Property for more than eleven years. 9. Defendant and/or its agent has contacted Plaintiff, and his siblings Katherine Aaslestad Lambertson, Karen Aaslestad-Aubouy, and Lauren Aaslestad Massey, with offers to enter into easement agreements encumbering the Property for construction of the pipeline. 10. At no time has Plaintiff, a co-owner of right in the Property, provided consent to the Defendant to enter, clear trees or other foliage, and/or construct its pipeline across the Property. 11. At no time have Plaintiff’s siblings, Katherine Aaslestad Lambertson, Karen Aaslestad-Aubouy, and Lauren Aaslestad Massey, also co-owners of right in the Property, provided consent to the Defendant to enter, clear trees or other foliage, and/or construct its pipeline across the Property. 12. According to the conveyance records for St. Martin Parish, it appears that other individuals with claimed ownership interest in the Property have signed easement agreements with Bayou Bridge Pipeline, LLC. See, e.g., Permanent Easement Agreement, Apr. 14, 2017 (Ex. B) (identifying four separate tracts, including the subject Property (LA-SM-6681), and including a map of the easement across the Property, at pg. 11 of 11). The Permanent Easement Agreement(s) signed by other co-owners of the Property generally grant Bayou Bridge: [A] servitude or right of way along and through a strip of land Fifty (50’) feet in width . . . for the purpose of constructing, maintaining, operating, repairing, replacing and removing in whole or in part, one (1) pipeline with a maximum 3 diameter of Thirty Inches (30”) inches, outside measurement, for the transportation of liquid hydrocarbons including crude oil and all by-products thereof, or gases which can be transported through pipeline, as well as natural gas and all byproducts thereof, across the following described land situated in St. Martin Parish, Louisiana, to-wit: ... LA-SM-6681: That certain tract of land composed of 38.00 acre(s), more or less, located in Section 4, T11S, R9E, in St. Martin Parish, Louisiana, and being more particularly described as the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter in Book 784, Page 176 of the public records of said Parish. Permanent Easement Agreement, at 1. 13. Plaintiff believes that Bayou Bridge and/or its agents may have already commenced preconstruction and construction activities, including tree clearing and trenching, on the Property, despite not having an obtained consent or easement agreements from Plaintiff and his three siblings. 14. During a monitoring flight on June 28, 2018, wetlands expert Scott Eustis with Gulf Restoration Network flew over the pipeline route across the Basin. Mr. Eustis observed that the majority of the pipeline right of way on the west side of the Atchafalaya Basin (the area between the Atchafalaya River and the West Atchafalaya Guide Levee), including all of the Buffalo Cove area and the Property at issue had been cleared of trees. Figure 1 below depicts a google map of Defendant’s pipeline right of way (in red) as it crosses the Property. 4 Figure 1. This map, created by Scott Eustis of Gulf Restoration Network, depicts where the pipeline will cross the Property at issue in this matter. The pin and accompanying coordinates indicate the general location along the pipeline route on the Property shown in the photos depicted at figures 2, 3, and 4 below. Figure 2 below is an aerial-view photograph of the Property depicting an area that has been cleared of surrounding trees. This cleared-area aligns with the proposed pipeline right of way across the Property. During the monitoring flight on June 28, 2018, Mr. Eustis observed no equipment related to clearing or construction on the Property, but rather the lack of trees along the proposed route for the pipeline indicates that the area has been cleared. On a previous monitoring flight on April 17, 2018, Mr. Eustis observed that the pipeline’s route across the property had not yet been cleared. 5 Figure 2. This photo was taken by Scott Eustis of Gulf Restoration Network during a monitoring flight on June 28, 2018. This photo depicts the pipeline right of way as it crosses the Property. As seen in the photo, the right of way has been cleared of trees. 15. On July 23, 2018, Dean A. Wilson, Executive Director and Basinkeeper for Atchafalaya Basinkeeper, conducted an additional monitoring flight over the Bayou Bridge Pipeline route across the Atchafalaya Basin. On this trip, Mr. Wilson observed equipment and construction activities on the Property. It appeared that construction activities had begun, that one excavator present on the Property was actively digging the trench in which the pipeline will be laid along the proposed pipeline route as it crosses the Property. Figure 3 below depicts the observed construction activities on the Property, and Figure 4 provides a clear photo of the construction equipment present on the Property during the July 23, 2018 monitoring flight. 6 Figure 3. This photo was taken by Dean Wilson during a monitoring flight on July 23, 2018. This photo depicts the pipeline right of way as it crosses the Property. As seen in the photo, there is equipment on the Property and it appears that the trench in which the pipe will be laid is being dug along the pipeline route as it crosses the Property. Figure 4. This photo was taken by Dean Wilson during a monitoring flight on July 23, 2018. This photo depicts the pipeline right of way as it crosses the Property. As seen in the photo, there is construction equipment, one excavator, on the Property indicating active construction thereon. 16. To the best of Plaintiff’s knowledge, Defendant is the only pipeline operator currently working in this right of way. 7 17. Defendant’s permit to construct the pipeline through the Basin has been challenged in federal court. Atchafalaya Basinkeeper, et. al. v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, Case no. 18-23SDD-EWD (M.D. La. 2018). The validity of the permit issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to Defendant in December 2017 remains at issue, although the district court granted a preliminary injunction enjoining further construction pending resolution on the merits of the case. See Ruling and Order, filed 02/23/18 in Atchafalaya Basinkeeper, et. al. v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, Case no. 18-23-SDD-EWD (M.D. La. 2018). Defendant appealed the preliminary injunction order, making recent representations to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit that, as of June 24, 2018, it had completed nearly 76% of construction on the entire pipeline, with an expected completion projection of October 2018. See Response to Court Directive, filed 06/27/2018 in Atchafalaya Basinkeeper, et. al. v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, Case no. 18-30257 (5th Cir. 2018) (Ex. C). 18. Defendant further asserted that 62% of the right of way in the Atchafalaya Basin (including St. Martin Parish) had been cleared of trees as of June 24, 2018, and that by June 29, 2018, 65% of the right of way in the Basin would be cleared. Id. Defendant further predicted that 100% of the right of way in the Basin will be cleared by August 8, 2018, 13% of construction (“including but not limited to clearing, trenching, stringing, laying of pipe, backfilling, and tyingin of pipeline segments”) in the Basin would be completed by June 29, 2018, with 100% of construction in the Basin also completed by October 2018. Id. These representations make clear that, even if Defendant has not already entered onto the Property, it intends to do so very soon. Although, as shown in the photos above, unless another person or entity has entered onto and begun construction on the Property, it appears Defendant has done so. 19. Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief in this action to protect his real right of ownership in the Property pursuant to Articles 3601 and 3663 of the Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure. 20. Plaintiff will suffer irreparable harm if Defendant is not enjoined from impermissibly entering onto his Property and performing preconstruction and construction activities thereon. 8 21. Plaintiff also seeks declaratory relief in this action pursuant to Article 1871 of the Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure to establish that Defendant has entered onto the Property without the consent of all owners. PRAYER FOR RELEIF WHEREFORE, upon consideration of the laws and facts presented, after opportunity for hearing, Plaintiff respectfully moves this Court to grant declaratory and injunctive relief, in the form of either a temporary restraining order, a preliminary injunction, and permanent injunction in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant and its officers, employees, agents, contractors, subcontractors, and others at the direction of or on behalf of Defendant, and all other relief to which Plaintiff is entitled, as follows: a. Injunctive relief to prevent Defendant, its officers, employees, agents, contractors, subcontractors, and others at the direction of or on behalf of Defendant, from entering onto Plaintiff’s property; b. Injunctive relief to enjoin Defendant, its officers, employees, agents, contractors, subcontractors, and others at the direction of or on behalf of Defendant, from clearing, trenching, stringing, laying pipe, backfilling, tyingin of pipeline segments, or performing any other preconstruction and/or construction-related activities for its Bayou Bridge pipeline project on Plaintiff’s property; c. Declaratory relief to establish that Defendant, its officers, employees, agents, contractors, subcontractors, and others at the direction of or on behalf of Defendant have entered onto and performed preconstruction and/or construction-related activities on the Property without the consent of all owners thereof; d. Costs and attorneys fees pursuant to any applicable statute or authority; and e. Any additional relief as the Court may deem just and proper. 9 Respectfully submitted this 27th day of July, 2018. s/ Misha L. Mitchell Misha L. Mitchell La. Bar. No. 37506 Atchafalaya Basinkeeper 47 Mt. Laurel Ave Birmingham, AL 35242 Phone: (225) 692-1133 Fax: (225) 692-4114 basinkeeperlegal@gmail.com s/ William P. Quigley William P. Quigley La. Bar. No. 07769 7214 St. Charles Avenue New Orleans, LA 70118 Phone: (504) 710-3078 Fax: (504) 861-5440 quigley77@gmail.com Attorneys for Plaintiff PLEASE SERVE: Bayou Bridge Pipeline, LLC c/o Corporation Service Company (registered agent) 501 Louisiana Avenue Baton Rouge, LA 70802 10 16TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT FOR THE PARISH OF ST. MARTIN STATE OF LOUISIANA NO. ___________ DIVISION _______ PETER K. AASLESTAD VERSUS BAYOU BRIDGE PIPELINE, LLC FILED: __________________________ _____________________________ DEPUTY CLERK VERIFICATION BEFORE ME, the undersigned Notary Public in and for the county aforesaid, did personally come and appear the undersigned, who after being duly sworn, did depose and state: I, Peter K. Aaslestad, declare I am the Plaintiff in the above-entitled matter. I have read the foregoing petition. I verify under penalty of perjury that the factual statements in this petition are true and accurate to the best of my knowledge. Executed on this ________ day of July, 2018 at ________________________ County, _________________________________. (Signature of Party) Name: Notary Public 11