STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA, ) IN CIRCUIT COURT ss COUNTY OF MINER ) THIRD JUDICIAL CIRCUIT DAKOTA ACCESS, LLC, » Cw 1s, atte ) Plaintiff, ) ) COMPLAINT FOR PRELIMINARY v, } INJUNCTION TO PROVIDE ) SURVEY AC DALE D. HOYER, CODY D. HOYER, AND CRAIG D, HOYER Defendants COMES NOW Dakota Access, LLC, by and through its attorneys Brett Koenecke and Justin L, Bell of May, Adams, Gerdes & Thompson, LLP, who makes and files this Complaint against Defendants and, in support thereof, states as follows: I. Plaintiff Dakota Access, LLC, (“Dakota Access") is a Delaware limited liability company having its principal place of business in Dallas, Texas. Dakota Access proposes to construct a crude oil pipeline and related facilities to provide transportation service from points of origin in the Bakken/Three Forks play in North Dakota to a terminus in Illinois, with various potential points of destination along the pipeline. Dakota Access filed an application with the South Dakota Public Utilities Commission for the project on December 15, 2014. 2. The pipeline will enter South Dakota at the South Dakota-North Dakota border in Campbell County. It will extend in a southeasterly direction through portions of Campbell County, McPherson Counly, Edmunds County, Faulk County, Spink County, Beadle County, Kingsbury County, Miner County, Lake County, MeCook County, Minnehala County, Tumer County, and Lincoln County. It will leave South Dakota at the South Dakota-Towa border in Lincoln County. Filed: 3/27/2015 1:51:09 PMCST Miner County, South Dakota 48C1V15-0000093, Dakota Access is 2 common carrier as defined by South Dakota and federal law, and has the privilege of eminent domain pursuant to SDCL §§ 49-2-12 and 49-7-13. 4, Inherent in Dakota Access’s privilege of eminent domain is the right to access property for survey purposes before condemnation. 5. ‘The Defendants are landowners in Miner County, South Dakota, The Defendants own or are in possession of real property to be crossed by the Dakota Access Pipeline as follows: Tandawner | Dale Ds Hoyer, Cody D. Hoyer, and Craig, | The NWI/A, except the West 350° of the North | Hoyer 475° of See. 32, THOBN, RSSW, Miner County, | South Dakota, described in Watranty Deed dated | ‘March 6, 2014 from Dale D, Hoyer to Cody D. | Hoyer and Craig 1D. Hoyer, recorded at Deed | |e 95, Page 471, Deed Records, Miner | County, South Dakota, less and expect any retofore made | | | | i nveyances 6, As preparation for construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline, and, if necessary, the exercise of its power of eminent domain, Dakota Access must first enter the landowners” property to make an examination of said property, including conducting preliminary civil, ‘environmental and archaeological surveys and environmental or archeological investigations, including any necessary core or water sampling activities subject to any conditions. ‘The surveys are also necessary to identify and describe the property needed for construction of the pipeline, 7. Agents for Dakota Access have contacted the Defendants more than once asking for permission to enter the property for survey purposes. ‘The Defendants have been presented with a survey authorization form, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit A. 8, The Defendants have refused to grant Dakota Access access for survey purposes. Filed: 3/27/2016 1:51:09 PMCST Miner County, South Dakota 48C1V15-0000099. To meet its project schedule, Dakota Access needs to begin surveys on Defendants property no later than May 1, 2015, 10. The Defendants! denial of survey access effectively denies Dnkota Access its right to exercise the power of eminent domai COUNT ONE-DECLARATORY JUDGMENT 11, Under SDCL § 21-24-1, an imminent conflict exists between the partios. 12, Based on its right to exercise the power of domain es a common carrier, Dakota ‘Access has the inherent right to survey property preliminary to acquisition of an easement oz condemnation. 13, The Defendants? refusal to allow survey access is unlawful COUNT TWO-INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 14, The Defendants’ refusal to allow survey access is unlawful and unreasonable, and will cause irreparable harm to Dakota Access. 15, Dakota Access has no adequate remedy at law because damages cannot adequately compensate it for the loss of its right to conduct the surveys, which are necessary for construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline. 16, Injunetive relief is necessary to prohibit Defendants from interfering with Dakota Access’ rights under South Dakota law. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment as follows: i, That the Court declare under SDCL Ch. 21-24 that pursuant to its right to exercise the power of eminent domain, Dakota Access has the inherent right to survey the Defendants’ property preliminary to acquisition of an easement or condemnation; 2. That the Court enter an order compelling the Defendants to grant Dakota Access survey access for the purpose of making an examination of said property, including conducting, Filed: 3/27/2015 1:51:09 PMCST Miner County, South Dakota 48CIV15-000009preliminary civil, environmental and archaeological surveys and environmental or archeological investigations, including any necessary core or water sampling activities subject to any conditions, and enjoining the Defendants from denying Dakota Access access to their Property for the purpose of conducting surveys incidental and necessary to the constru of the Dakota Access Pipeline; and 3. Por any other relief that the Court deems just and equitable. Dated this ZG/day of March, 2 MAY, ADAM, GERDES & THOMPSON LLP BY: TT KOENECKE, USTIN L. BELL Attorneys for Plaintiff P.O, Box 160 Pierre, SD 57501-0160 (605) 224-8803 Filed: 3/27/2015 1:51:09 PMCST Miner County, South Dakota 48C1V15-000009