Edwards v. Arkansas Power & Light Co.
| Decision Date | 16 July 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. B-C-80-37.,B-C-80-37. |
| Citation | 519 F. Supp. 484 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Arkansas |
| Parties | Ray EDWARDS and Louise Edwards, His Wife, Individually, and on Behalf of a Class Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. ARKANSAS POWER & LIGHT COMPANY, Defendant. |
Bill Bristow, Seay & Bristow, Jonesboro, Ark., Steven L. Bell, John Norman Harkey, Batesville, Ark., for plaintiffs.
House, Holmes & Jewell, Little Rock, Ark., for defendant.
Arkansas Power & Light Company (AP&L), the defendant, is a corporate entity and a public utility whose resources are devoted exclusively for generating, transmitting and supplying electric power for domestic and industrial consumption.
Under Arkansas law — Ark.Stat.Ann. §§ 35-302 and 73-276.15 (Repl.1979) — AP&L possesses the power of eminent domain and, accordingly, has the right to condemn private property for the purpose of "constructing electric generating plant sites, substation sites, compressor substation sites and meter station sites" conditioned upon the payment of just compensation.
On October 20, 1978, AP&L instituted an action in the Circuit Court of Independence County, Arkansas, to condemn several tracts of land owned by plaintiffs, Ray Edwards and Louise Edwards, husband and wife, for the purpose of constructing an electric generating plant, an associated fuel supply facility and transmission lines.1 In order to gain immediate possession of plaintiffs' property, AP&L deposited in the registry of the Independence Circuit Court, pursuant to court order, the sum of $136,000.00 which was to remain on deposit pending resolution of the issue of just compensation by a jury trial. The amount of the deposit was based upon AP&L's estimation and declaration to the Independence Circuit Court that just compensation for plaintiffs' lands was $850.00 per acre. AP&L's appearance before the state court for an order authorizing immediate entry upon plaintiffs' lands was ex parte.2
On October 31, 1978, plaintiffs filed their answer which was essentially a general denial and requested a jury trial on the question of just compensation.
On October 10, 1979, plaintiffs filed their amended answer and counterclaim alleging, among other things, that AP&L had failed to exercise good faith in estimating the value of plaintiffs' lands at $850.00 per acre, when AP&L knew or should have known that plaintiffs' lands were worth $1,650.00 per acre; that at the time, AP&L had settled other cases involving lands similar to plaintiffs' property at a value of $1,650.00 per acre; and that subsequently to the actual taking of plaintiffs' lands, but prior to a trial on the question of just compensation, AP&L was advised by its own witnesses that plaintiffs' land had a fair market value of $1,650.00 per acre. Plaintiffs further alleged, in their counterclaim, that in view of the statutory authority granting AP&L the power of eminent domain, AP&L is an arm of the State, and this plus the superior position AP&L enjoys because of the expertise it possesses in land condemnation matters, AP&L was under a duty to act in good faith in estimating the fair market of plaintiffs' property to the state court; that as a consequence of AP&L's indifference to plaintiffs' property interest, plaintiffs were compelled to employ the services of an attorney in order to establish the fair market value of their lands; and that AP&L had benefited economically, or been unjustly enriched, by making use of the difference between the deposit of $136,000.00 and the jury's award of $206,000.00.
Plaintiffs further asserted in the state court proceedings that they should have judgment against AP&L in the sum of $60,000.00 for actual damages and $250,000.00 as exemplary damages because of defendant's reckless "indifference and/or disregard to the property rights of the defendants", plaintiffs herein.
On October 24, 1979, a jury returned a verdict in behalf of the plaintiffs finding that plaintiffs' property had a fair market value of $1,700.00 per acre. However, pursuant to motion of AP&L, the verdict was set aside and AP&L was granted a new trial. On July 23, 1980, a second jury awarded plaintiffs the sum of $2,050.00 per acre for 167.25 acres of land and the sum of $816.67 per acre for an additional forty (40) acre tract of plaintiffs' land. On August 12, 1980, a judgment was entered of record by the state court on the jury's verdict.
By stipulation of the parties, the issues raised by plaintiffs' counterclaim in the state court were not tried to the jury either on October 24, 1979, or July 23, 1980. These issues were bifurcated and were to be tried at a later date. However, on August 12, 1980, plaintiffs moved for a voluntary nonsuit of their counterclaim and accordingly, the Circuit Court of Independence County dismissed plaintiffs' federal constitutional claim without prejudice.
On September 2, 1980, plaintiffs filed this action asserting the following jurisdictional grounds:
3. This action arises under the United States Constitution, particularly under the provisions of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and under the laws of the United States, particularly under the Civil Rights Act, Title 42 of the United States Code, Sections 1983 and 1988.3
This proceeding is on AP&L's motion to dismiss plaintiff's complaint, asserting, inter alia, that the Independence Circuit Court's judgment is res judicata.
The pivotal issue is whether this Court can properly entertain plaintiffs' § 1983 action in view of the fact plaintiff had an available forum, in the Independence Circuit Court proceeding, for raising the federal constitutional issues sought to be litigated here. The Court is persuaded that the answer is in the negative and, accordingly, AP&L's motion to dismiss is granted.
It is settled that issues litigated, or could have been litigated in a proceeding, may not be raised in a second proceeding arising out of the same cause of action and involving the same parties or their privies. Robbins v. District Court of Worth City, Iowa, 592 F.2d 1015 (8th Cir. 1979). In order to avoid the application of the principles of res judicata, in a second proceeding, such as we have here, a plaintiff must come within the exception to the rule by demonstrating that either state law did not provide a fair and reasonable procedure for the litigation, as here, of the federal constitutional claim, or the state forum failed to recognize the constitutional theory on which the litigant based his claim of deprivation of his federal rights. Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90, 101 S.Ct. 411, 66 L.Ed.2d 308 (1980).
It is clear that res judicata applies to an action brought under Title 42, Section 1983. Allen v. McCurry, supra, Robbins v. District Court of Worth City, Iowa, supra.
In articulating the application of principles of res judicata to a § 1983 proceeding, the ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Harrington v. Inhabitants of Town of Garland, Me., Civ. No. 78-19-B.
...which the litigant based his claim," Allen v. McCurry, supra, 449 U.S. at 101, 101 S.Ct. at 418. See also Edwards v. Arkansas Power & Light Co., 519 F.Supp. 484, 486-87 (E.D.Ark.1981) failure to avail oneself of opportunity to present federal constitutional issue in state court condemnation......
-
Edwards v. Arkansas Power & Light Co., 81-1865
...court dismissing their section 1983 action against Arkansas Power & Light Company (AP&L). We reverse and remand to the district court, 519 F.Supp. 484, with directions to abstain until the state court, in plaintiffs' pending state lawsuit, has had an opportunity to resolve certain unsettled......
-
Edwards v. Arkansas Power & Light Co.
...and filed substantially the same action in the federal court. The district court dismissed the suit. Edwards v. Ark. Power & Light Co., 519 F.Supp. 484 (E.D.Ark.1981). On appeal, however, the court of appeals held that the federal courts should abstain from considering the case on its merit......