Sunoco Pipeline Lp v. Daniel La Hart, individually

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
____________
No. 25-2551
____________
SUNOCO PIPELINE LP,
Appellant
v.
DANIEL LA HART, individually and on behalf of a class of others similarly
situated; KATHERINE LA HART, individually and on behalf of a class of others
similarly situated; ROBERTA GELTCH, individually and on behalf of a class of
others similarly situated; JAMES GELTCH, individually and on behalf of a
class of others similarly situated; ANDREW MELA, individually and on
behalf of a class of others similarly situated; HEATHER MELA, individually
and on behalf of a class of others similarly situated; W. SCOTT MILLER,
individually and on behalf of a class of others similarly situated;
MARYIDA MILLER, individually and on behalf of a class of others similarly
situated; JOHN VANNI, individually and on behalf of a class of others
similarly situated; ANGELA VANNI, individually and on behalf of a class
of others similarly situated; KEVIN WOJNOVICH, individually and on
behalf of a class of others similarly situated; KRISTINE WOJNOVICH,
individually and on behalf of a class of others similarly situated; BASIL
TSOLAKIS, individually and on behalf of a class of others similarly situated;
FOTEINI TSOLAKIS, individually and on behalf of a class of others similarly
situated; GERALD TSOLAKIS, individually and on behalf of a class of others
similarly situated; MANTHA NIKOLOUDAKI, individually and on behalf of a
class of others similarly situated
____________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(District Court No. 2:25-cv-03694)
District Judge: Honorable Mia R. Perez

-- 1 of 7 --

2
____________
Argued: April 30, 2026
____________
Before: CHAGARES, Chief Judge, ROTH, Circuit Judge, and DOW, * District Judge
(Filed: August 18, 2026)
______________
Cassidy Duckett Britt
Morgan Lewis & Bockius
1201 N Market Street
Suite 2201
Wilmington, DE 19801
Robert D. Fox
Manko Gold Katcher & Fox
Three Bala Plaza East
Suite 700
Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
Randall M. Levine
Morgan Lewis & Bockius
1111 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Suite 800 North
Washington, DC 20004
Duke K. McCall, III
Morgan Lewis & Bockius
1111 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Suite 800 North
Washington, DC 20004
Laura H. McNally [ARGUED]
Morgan Lewis & Bockius
2222 Market Street
12th Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103
* Honorable Robert M. Dow, Jr., District Judge of the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, sitting by designation.

-- 2 of 7 --

3
Diana A. Silva
Manko Gold Katcher & Fox
Three Bala Plaza East
Suite 700
Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
Counsel for Appellant
Shanon J. Carson
Berger Montague
1818 Market Street
Suite 3600
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Jordan C. Hughes [ARGUED]
Berger Montague
1229 Tyler Street NE
Suite 205
Minneapolis, MN 55413
Joseph E. Samuel, Jr.
Berger Montague
1818 Market Street
Suite 3600
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Yechiel M. Twersky
Berger Montague
1818 Market Street
Suite 3600
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Counsel for Appellees
______________
OPINION†
____________
† This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and, pursuant to 3d Cir. I.O.P. 5.7,
does not constitute binding precedent.

-- 3 of 7 --

4
CHAGARES, Chief Judge.
After a leak opened in a nearby fuel pipeline operated by Sunoco Pipeline LP
(“Sunoco”), several residents filed a lawsuit against the company in state court. The
residents sought injunctions compelling Sunoco to take specific remedial measures.
Sunoco moved for emergency relief in federal court, contending that these actions
violated the Pipeline Safety Act’s (“PSA”) prohibition of state regulation over interstate
pipelines. Sunoco appeals the District Court’s denial of that motion. But Sunoco did not
comply with the Act’s pre-suit notice and delay requirement before commencing this
lawsuit. For the following reasons, we will thus vacate the District Court’s order and
remand with instructions to dismiss.
I.1
On January 31, 2025, Sunoco identified a leak in its Twin Oaks Pipeline in Upper
Makefield Township, located in Bucks County, Pennsylvania. The leak contaminated the
groundwater, soil, and air of the surrounding communities.
In response, Daniel La Hart, his wife, and other local residents filed a putative
class action in Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas against Sunoco and several
related entities. Sunoco and its affiliates timely removed the action to federal court under
the Class Action Fairness Act. The residents then moved to remand, and the District
Court granted the motion.2
1 We write primarily for the parties, so we recite only the facts essential to our decision.
2 Sunoco and its affiliates have appealed this ruling. See Dkt. Nos. 25-2152, 25-8027.
That appeal is not at issue in this case.

-- 4 of 7 --

5
The La Harts filed a renewed motion for a preliminary injunction in state court,
seeking identical relief to what they had requested in federal court. Several other local
residents also filed their own lawsuits in state court seeking equitable and injunctive
relief that closely resembled the relief sought by the La Harts.
Counsel for Sunoco sent a letter to the relevant U.S. Department of Transportation
official on July 18, 2025, “provid[ing] notice pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60121, on behalf of
[Sunoco], of certain activities that violate the Pipeline Safety Act.” Joint Appendix
(“J.A.”) 119. Sunoco filed this lawsuit that same day, alleging that the residents’ state
court actions for injunctive relief amounted to an impermissible attempt at state
regulation over interstate pipelines. Sunoco quickly moved for a temporary restraining
order and preliminary injunction. The District Court denied the motion, and Sunoco
timely appealed.
II.3
This lawsuit must be dismissed because Sunoco failed to comply with the PSA’s
60-day notice and delay requirement. The PSA’s notice and delay provision provides:
(1) A person may bring a civil action in an appropriate district
court of the United States for an injunction against another
person . . . for a violation of this chapter or a regulation
prescribed or order issued under this chapter. However, the
person—
(A) may bring the action only after 60 days after the
person has given notice of the violation to the Secretary
3 The District Court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. We have jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). We review the denial of a motion for a preliminary injunction
for abuse of discretion. Smith v. City of Atlantic City, 138 F.4th 759, 770 (3d Cir. 2025).

-- 5 of 7 --

6
of Transportation or to the appropriate State
authority . . . and to the person alleged to have
committed the violation.
49 U.S.C. § 60121(a)(1)(A).
In Hallstrom v. Tillamook County, 493 U.S. 20 (1989), the Supreme Court
addressed the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act’s (“RCRA”) similar 60-day
notice and delay requirement. The Court held that RCRA’s notice and 60-day delay
requirements are “mandatory conditions precedent to commencing suit” that district
courts “may not disregard . . . at [their] discretion.” Id. at 31.
Sunoco does not dispute that it failed to provide the required notice. Sunoco
instead suggests that Hallstrom permits a “flexible construction” of notice requirements.
Sunoco Reply Br. 27. Yet the Hallstrom Court rejected calls for a “flexible or pragmatic
construction” of RCRA’s notice requirement,4 reasoning that such a construction “flatly
contradicts the language of the statute.” 493 U.S. at 26. Sunoco also contends that no
court “has ever held that the PSA’s pre-suit notice requirement operates as an inflexible
condition precedent to suit.” Sunoco Reply Br. 27. We are not convinced, however.
See, e.g., Laclede Gas. Co. v. St. Charles County, 713 F.3d 413, 417 (8th Cir. 2013)
(“[A] PSA action cannot be filed until 60 days after proper notice is given to the
Secretary of Transportation, or to the appropriate state agency, and to the person alleged
to have committed the violation.” (citing Hallstrom, 493 U.S. at 23 & n.1)); SFPP, L.P. v.
4 As the Hallstrom Court observed, RCRA’s notice requirement and the notice
requirement in many other statutes — including the PSA’s precursor statute — were all
modeled upon the notice requirement in the Clean Air Act’s citizen suit provision. See
Hallstrom, 493 U.S. 23 & n.1 (citing 42 U.S.C. § 7604).

-- 6 of 7 --

7
Union Pac. R.R. Co., 274 F. App’x 549, 551 (9th Cir. 2008) (“In addition, SFPP’s claims
under the Pipeline Safety Improvement Act fail because SFPP did not provide the
requisite notice 60 days before filing its original complaint.” (citing Hallstrom, 493 U.S.
at 25–33)). And though Sunoco urges that we grant an equitable exception to the
statutory requirement, “we are not at liberty to create an exception where Congress has
declined to do so.” Hallstrom, 493 U.S. at 27.
In sum, the language of the PSA’s citizen suit provision is clear, and Sunoco could
not commence this lawsuit until 60 days after it had given the requisite notice. Because
Sunoco did not comply with this requirement, this lawsuit must be dismissed. See
Hallstrom, 493 U.S. at 31 (“As a general rule, if an action is barred by the terms of a
statute, it must be dismissed.”).
III.
For the foregoing reasons, we will vacate the order of the District Court and
remand with instructions to dismiss this case without prejudice.

-- 7 of 7 --