Third Circuit Breathes Life Into Procedural Due Process Claims In Pipeline’s Case Against Delaware’s State Escheator

by Pillsbury - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law

In the case of Plains All American Pipeline L.P. v. Cook, et al., decided on August 9, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit largely affirmed the dismissal of Plains All American Pipeline L.P.’s (Plains) complaint that the State of Delaware’s proposed escheat audit of the pipeline is unconstitutional. The Third Circuit held that, at present, Plains’s claims are unripe and not suitable to be decided by the courts. Except that it reversed the District Court’s dismissal of Plains’s procedural due process claim, and remanded it to the District Court for further consideration.

In October 2014, Delaware’s Audit Manager notified Plains that the State intended to conduct a multi-state audit of its records for the period 1986 to the present, and that a private auditing firm engaged by the State would perform the audit. If the audit was not completed by June 30, 2015, it would be expanded to include the records from 1981 as well.

In response, Plains filed this lawsuit, arguing that this proposed audit violated the Constitution, seeking injunctive relief and an appropriate declaratory judgment. The U.S. District Court dismissed the complaint, “finding that Plains’s claims were unripe except for an equal protection claim that it dismissed for failure to state a claim.”

On appeal, the Third Circuit noted that

All states have laws authorizing them to seize private property through escheat, ‘a procedure with ancient origins whereby a sovereign may acquire title to abandoned property if after a number of years no rightful owner appears.’ Texas v. New Jersey, 379 U.S. 674, 675 (1965). But in recent years, state escheat laws have come under assault for being exploited to raise revenue rather than reunite abandoned property with its owners. Delaware’s Escheats, or Unclaimed Property, Law is no exception; as unclaimed property has become Delaware’s third-largest source of revenue, companies have brought a wave of lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of Delaware’s escheat regime.

“Rooted in a practice that dates back to feudal times, Delaware’s Escheats Law is the mechanism by which Delaware takes custody of abandoned property in the State.” As amended, Delaware’s Escheat Law requires that a holder of “property presumed abandoned” must file a yearly report with the State Escheator in which it provides information about the property and its possible owner. When filing the report, the holder must also “pay or deliver . . . the property described in the report’ to the State Escheator[], who then takes custody of the property and may sell it.”

“To ensure compliance with the law,” Delaware’s Escheats Law permits the “State Escheator to ‘[e]xamine the records of a person or the records in the possession of an agent, representative, subsidiary, or affiliate of the person under examination in order to determine whether the person complied with this chapter.” This examination may be performed by private third-parties on the State Escheator’s.

If the person subject to examination does not retained the required records, the “State Escheator may determine the amount of property due using a reasonable method of estimation.” If it is determined “that a holder has underreported unclaimed property due and owing,” the State Escheator “shall mail a statement of findings and request for payment to the holder that filed.” If liability is assessed, the State may also charge interest and penalties. The holder of the abandoned property may then seek judicial review of the State Escheator’s decision in the Court of Chancery.

Four of Plains’s claims were facial challenges—”three allege that the estimation provisions of the Delaware Escheats Law are preempted, void for vagueness, and violate substantive due process, while the fourth alleges that the Delaware Escheats Law violates the Fourth Amendment by not affording precompliance judicial review of an auditor’s document demands.” Plains’s two as-applied claims before the Third Circuit included “a Fourth Amendment challenge to the scope of Kelmar’s document requests and a procedural due process challenge to Kelmar’s appointment to conduct the audit.”

Applying Supreme Court and Third Circuit precedent, the Third Circuit ultimately  agreed that these claims are unripe. Plains argued that “its interests are adverse to Delaware’s because it is being forced to choose between complying with a burdensome law and risking serious penalties.” The Third Circuit agreed that “a challenge to government action is typically ripe when a party is faced with that dilemma, we simply cannot find that Plains confronts such a situation here.” The Third Circuit found, in part, however, that “the only alleged harm Plains could suffer from estimation is based on contingencies and its substantive due process, void-for-vagueness, and preemption claims lack both sufficient adversity for ripeness and a cognizable Article III injury.” (The Third Circuit also noted that “[b]ut because Plains is bringing a preenforcement action, the justiciability issue in this case can equally be described in terms of standing.”)

It further confirmed that Third Circuit “precedent confirms that in all but those cases where the administrative process is at issue and imposes burdens that directly affect an entity’s day-to-day business, the costs of administrative investigations are usually not sufficient, however substantial, to justify review in a case that would otherwise be unripe.” In addition, “[s]ince this audit is an investigation confined to past conduct, it does not have the ‘direct effect’ on ‘day-to-day business.”

With respect to Plains’s Fourth Amendment Claim, the Third Circuit recognized that Third Circuit precedent “makes clear that ‘plaintiffs raising predominantly legal claims must still meet the minimum requirements for Article III jurisdiction.”

[T]he burden of an administrative investigation cannot usually itself confer Article III jurisdiction…Whether put in terms of ripeness or standing, because the audit is not enforceable, and because its occurrence is still based on contingencies, Plains has not alleged a ‘sufficiently imminent injury’ that would give rise to a justiciable case under Article III of the Constitution.

However, the Third Circuit agreed with Plains that the District Court erred in dismissing its as-applied procedural due process argument, based on the appointment of this outside auditor, described by Plains as being “self-interested” and having a stake in the outcome, to conduct the audit.

To establish a due process violation, all Plains must show is that it was required to submit a dispute to a self-interested party… Because the conduct being challenged by Plains is the appointment of Kelmar to conduct this audit, the harm alleged for this claim is not based on a contingency; it is based on conduct that has already occurred.

The Third Circuit confirmed that Plains’s procedural due process claim is ripe and the District Court erred in dismissing it.


DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Pillsbury - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Pillsbury - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law

Pillsbury - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.


JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at:

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.