H&T Fair Hills, Ltd., on behalf of themselves v. Alliance Pipeline L.P., also known as Alliance USA

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 24-3563
___________________________
H&T Fair Hills, Ltd., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated;
Norman Zimmerman, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated;
Donna Zimmerman, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated;
Steven Wherry, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated; Valerie
Wherry, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated; Robert Ruebel,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated; Mary Ruebel, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated; Larry Ruebel, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated; Mark Hein, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated; Debra Hein, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated; Nicholas Hein, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated
Plaintiffs - Appellees
v.
Alliance Pipeline L.P., also known as Alliance USA
Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the District of Minnesota
____________
Submitted: June 12, 2025
Filed: September 4, 2025
____________
Before LOKEN, ERICKSON, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
____________

-- 1 of 4 --

-2-
ERICKSON, Circuit Judge.
Years ago, Alliance Pipeline L.P. (“Alliance”) signed easements with
landowners to obtain a right-of-way to install a natural gas pipeline across land in
four states. Subsequently, numerous landowners commenced this class action
alleging Alliance breached the easement agreements when it refused to pay for crop
damages. The district court1 certified a class consisting of all persons or entities
with a land interest who, since 2014, were or are eligible for crop loss compensation.
Seventy-three percent of the plaintiffs signed easements containing an arbitration
provision. The others have no agreement compelling arbitration.
In a prior appeal, this Court ordered the district court to exclude from the class
the members subject to an arbitration agreement (and dismiss these claims without
prejudice). H&T Fair Hills, Ltd. v. Alliance Pipeline L.P., 76 F.4th 1093 (8th Cir.
2023). As to the class members without arbitration agreements, the Court suggested
the claims proceed “in the normal course at the district court.” Id. It naturally flows
from this decision that on remand the district court would in effect create two
subclasses—one subclass of members who must arbitrate their claims and another
subclass of members who can continue to litigate their claims in the district court.
Consistent with this Court’s decision, in November 2023, the district court
dismissed the class members subject to an arbitration agreement. In May 2024, the
plaintiffs filed a motion to reconsider based on the Supreme Court’s decision in
Smith v. Spizzirri, 601 U.S. 472 (2024).2 Upon reconsideration, the district court
concluded that Spizzirri is an intervening change in the law that occurred prior to the
1 The Honorable Joan N. Ericksen, United States District Judge for the District
of Minnesota.
2 The Supreme Court in Spizzirri held: “When a district court finds that a
lawsuit involves an arbitrable dispute, and a party requests a stay pending arbitration,
§ 3 of the Federal Arbitration Act compels the court to stay the proceeding.” 601
U.S. at 478.

-- 2 of 4 --

-3-
entry of judgment. Because Spizzirri made plain that a court does not have the
discretion to dismiss claims on the basis that they are subject to arbitration, the
district court reinstated and stayed the claims of landowners subject to arbitration
agreements.
For some time now, everyone involved in this litigation appears to understand
and acknowledge that some landowners must arbitrate the merits of their claims and
some landowners can continue to litigate in the district court. The parties, however,
have demonstrated a persistent resistance to having the merits decided in either
forum. This appeal, once again, is a procedural challenge to the district court’s
handling of this drawn-out case that, while expensive and time-consuming, has no
impact on the merits of any of the claims. Alliance also seeks a stay of the district
court proceedings pending appeal.
With that background, we turn to our first task in any case which is to ensure
we have jurisdiction over an appeal. Hairston v. Wormuth, 107 F.4th 867, 869 (8th
Cir. 2024). Alliance appeals from the district court’s order granting the plaintiffs’
motion for reconsideration. The jurisdictional grounds for the appeal cited by
Alliance are: 28 U.S.C. § 1294, which designates the appropriate court of appeals,
and 9 U.S.C. § 16(a)(1)(B), which permits an appeal from an order “denying a
petition under section 4 of this title to compel arbitration.”
Alliance bears the burden of establishing we have jurisdiction. Reinholdson
v. Minnesota, 346 F.3d 847, 849 (8th Cir. 2003). Although Alliance relies on 9
U.S.C. § 16(a)(1)(B), the decision Alliance asks us to review is not an order denying
a petition to compel arbitration—either by title or in substance. At oral argument,
when it was suggested by the Court that perhaps the collateral order doctrine may
provide a possible jurisdictional basis, Alliance’s counsel disavowed application of
the doctrine, stating, “I guess, I think you don’t need to get there, right, because you
know there are arbitration agreements.” Alliance has not pointed to any authority
indicating the mere existence of an arbitration agreement provides an automatic right
of immediate appeal. Because Alliance has not demonstrated a permissible basis for

-- 3 of 4 --

-4-
us to exercise jurisdiction over the district court’s reconsideration order, we lack the
authority to decide the merits of this appeal. See McAdams v. McCord, 533 F.3d
924, 929 (8th Cir. 2008).
We dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction and deny Alliance’s pending
motion to stay as moot.
______________________________

-- 4 of 4 --