Fla. Gas Transmission Co. v. +/- 1.603 Acres of Land in Columbia Cnty.
| Decision Date | 28 January 2022 |
| Docket Number | 3:21-cv-229-BJD-MCR |
| Parties | FLORIDA GAS TRANSMISSION COMPANY, LLC, Plaintiff, v. +/- 1.603 ACRES OF LAND IN COLUMBIA COUNTY, FLORIDA, FREEMON NEWTON, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF LILA GORDON NEWTON AND ANY UNKNOWN HEIRS AND BENEFICIARIES THERETO, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida |
Tract Nos: FL-COLU-067.00
ORDER ON AMENDED MOTION FOR FINAL SUMMARY DEFAULT JUDGMENT
This cause is before the Court on Plaintiff Florida Gas Transmission Company, LLC's (FGT's) Amended Motion for Final Summary Default Judgment as to Tract FL-COLU-067.00 and Memorandum of Law in Support (Doc. 58, Amended Motion) filed on May 13, 2021. FGT seeks the entry of default judgment against the Defendant-Owners and interested parties who have defaulted. No. Defendant has filed an answer appeared, or otherwise presented any claims or defenses in this case. Upon review, the Court concludes that the Amended Motion is due to be granted.
On March 19, 2020, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) granted FGT a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (“FERC Certificate”), which authorizes FGT to build, operate, and maintain the Putnam Expansion Project. (Doc. 1-5, FERC Certificate). The Putnam Expansion Project mainly consists of two natural gas pipeline “loops”: (1) a “West Loop, ” which is about 13.7 miles of a 30-inch diameter pipeline running between Columbia County, Florida, and Union County, Florida, and (2) an “East Loop, ” which is about 7.0 miles of a 30-inch diameter pipeline running between Clay County, Florida, and Putnam County, Florida. The Project will supply natural gas to Seminole Electric Cooperative's new gas-fired generating unit, which is replacing an older coal-fired generating unit. To construct the Project in accordance with the FERC Certificate, FGT must acquire certain easements located within the jurisdiction of this Court. As part of the certification process, FGT submitted, and FERC approved, alignment sheets showing the final location of the Project. (Doc. 8, Declaration of Elizabeth Porter, ¶ 9). FGT prepared the subject easements described in Composite Exhibit 2 to the Complaint (Doc. 1-3, Comp. Ex. 2) to conform to the FERC-approved alignment sheets (Porter Decl. ¶ 10).
In March 2021, FGT filed a complaint to condemn a temporary easement on the instant tract(s) under the Natural Gas Act, 15 U.S.C. § 717f(h). (Doc. 1, Complaint). FGT sued the land at issue, as well as the fee owners, a judgment creditor (Ford Motor Credit Company), and Unknown Owners, if any. FGT concurrently filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment to establish its right to condemn the subject easement(s) (Doc. 4) and a Motion for Preliminary Injunction to obtain immediate possession of the property (Doc. 5).
On July 1, 2021, the Court granted FGT's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Motion for Preliminary Injunction. (Doc. 62, Order). The July 1, 2021 Order established that FGT has the right to condemn the subject easement(s) under the Natural Gas Act, as well as the right to take immediate possession of the property. As security for the preliminary injunction, FGT deposited $3, 800.00, or twice the appraised value of the property, into the Court's Registry. (Doc. 63, Registry Monies).
The only outstanding issue is how much compensation FGT owes for the easement(s). FGT attaches to the Amended Motion a declaration by Chad Durrance, a licensed real estate appraiser with over 30 years' experience. (Doc. 58-1, Durrance Decl.). Mr. Durrance states, under penalty of perjury, that he appraised the value of the temporary easement and determined the easement to be worth $1, 900. Id. ¶¶ 6-8. Nothing in the record contradicts this valuation.
Between March 10, 2021 and March 23, 2021, FGT served the following defendants: Ford Motor Credit Company (Doc. 11), Veronica Flowers (Doc. 12), Warren Hollinger (Doc. 13), Roshanda Gordon (Doc. 15), Leo Gordon, Jr. (Doc. 17), Andrew English (Doc. 18), Augustine Blount (Doc. 19), Freemon Newton, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Lila Gordon Newton (Doc. 22), and Toynetta Jones (Doc. 20). Amended Motion at 5-6, ¶¶ 9-17. On April 9, 2021, FGT perfected service by publication on the remaining defendants under Rule 71.1(d)(3)(B), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Rule(s)”), those defendants being: Unknown Owners and Beneficiaries of the Estate of Dessie L. Gordon Alexander, Harold Gordon, Unknown Heirs and Beneficiaries of the Estate of Nathaniel Gordon, Craig Blount, Everlina Gordon Reed, Christine Gordon Surles, Pearline Gordon Ferguson, Shantell Hollinger, Edward Beasley, Unknown Heirs and Beneficiaries of the Estate of Roosevelt Gordon, Francine Gordon, Sherman Vincent as sole heir of the Estate of Elouise Gordon Young, Corine Gordon Wilson, Mary Jones, and Unknown Owners, if any. (Doc. 38 & Doc. 38-1, Certificate of Proof of Service by Publication); Amended Motion at 6- 7, ¶ 18. FGT filed affidavits in compliance with its obligations under the Servicemembers' Civil Relief Act (SCRA), 50 U.S.C. § 3901, et seq. (Docs. 66, 67, 68).[1] Under Rule 71.1(e)(2), “[a] defendant that has an objection or defense to the taking must serve an answer within 21 days after being served with the notice.” No. defendant served an answer or notice of an appearance within 21 days of being served. As a result, the Clerk of Court entered clerk's defaults with respect to each defendant. (Docs. 25-27, 31-36, 41-55, Clerk's Defaults). No. party has moved to set aside the Clerk's Defaults. FGT performed a diligent search for any persons who may have an interest in the property, in addition to the named Defendants, but it has identified no other such person or party. Amended Motion at 7, ¶ 19.
“When a party against whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought has failed to plead or otherwise defend, and that failure is shown by affidavit or otherwise, the clerk must enter the party's default.” Rule 55(a). Following the entry of a clerk's default, the Court may enter a default judgment against a properly served defendant who has failed to appear or otherwise defend. Rule 55(b)(2); see also DirecTV, Inc. v. Griffin, 290 F.Supp.2d 1340, 1343 (M.D. Fla. 2003).
“The defendant, by his default, admits the plaintiff's well-pleaded allegations of fact, is concluded on those facts by the judgment, and is barred from contesting on appeal the facts thus established.” Nishimatsu Const. Co. v. Houston Nat. Bank, 515 F.2d 1200, 1206 (5th Cir. 1975).[2] But “a defendant's default does not in itself warrant the court in entering a default judgment.” Id. Instead, “[e]ntry of default judgment is only warranted when there is ‘a sufficient basis in the pleadings for the judgment entered.'” Surtain v. Hamlin Terrace Found., 789 F.3d 1239, 1245 (11th Cir. 2015) (quoting Nishimatsu, 515 F.2d at 1206); see also Tyco Fire & Sec., LLC v. Alcocer, 218 Fed.Appx. 860, 863 (11th Cir. 2007). “Conceptually, then, a motion for default judgment is like a reverse motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.” Surtain, 789 F.3d at 1245. That means “a court looks to see whether the complaint contains sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)). The plaintiff meets that standard when the complaint “pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference” that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. Id.
Under Rule 71.1, “the failure to so serve an answer constitutes consent to the taking and to the court's authority to proceed with the action to fix the compensation.” Rule 71.1(d)(2)(A)(vi). Here, FGT served each Defendant pursuant to Rule 71.1(d)(3)(A) or (B) and no Defendant served an answer or a notice of appearance within 21 days of being served. Because “[a] defendant waives all objections and defenses not stated in its answer, ” Rule 71.1(e)(3), each Defendant waived all objections and defenses by failing to file an answer.
Moreover, none of the Defendants served a notice of appearance under Rule 71.1(e)(1). “[A]t the trial on compensation, a defendant - whether or not it has previously appeared or answered - may present evidence on the amount of compensation to be paid and may share in the award.” Rule 71.1(e)(3). Still, as of the date of this Order, no Defendant has appeared or presented any evidence about the amount of compensation.
The Court previously granted FGT immediate possession of the subject easement(s), thus concluding the issue of whether FGT has the right to condemn the property. (Doc. 62). Indeed, FGT alleged in its Complaint, and showed through affidavits and exhibits , that (1) it holds a FERC Certificate authorizing the Putnam Expansion Project, (2) the subject easements are necessary for the Project, and (3) FGT could not acquire the easements by contract. See Transcon. Gas Pipe Line Co., LLC v. 6.04 Acres of Land, 910 F.3d 1130, 1154 (11th Cir. 2018) (setting forth the elements that the holder of a FERC Certificate must show to condemn property under the Natural Gas Act).
Thus the only remaining issue is that of just compensation. “The burden of establishing the value of condemned land lies with [the landowner].” Columbia Gas Transmission Corp. v. Rodriguez, 551 F.Supp.2d 460, 462 (W.D. Va. 2008) (citing United States v. Powelson, 319 U.S. 266, 273-74 (1943)). “‘Market value,' rather than the value to the condemnor or the owner, is the proper measure of just compensation.” Id. (citing United States v. Petty Motor Co., 327...
To continue reading
Request your trial