Handy Land & Timber, LLLP v. Trancontinental Gas Pipe Line Co., LLC, 030119 FED11, 17-12322
|Opinion Judge:||PER CURIAM.|
|Party Name:||HANDY LAND & TIMBER, LLLP, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TRANCONTINENTAL GAS PIPE LINE COMPANY, LLC, Defendant-Appellee.|
|Judge Panel:||Before WILSON and JORDAN, Circuit Judges, and GRAHAM, District Judge.|
|Case Date:||March 01, 2019|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit|
DO NOT PUBLISH
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia D.C. Docket No. 3:17-cv-00041-ELR
Before WILSON and JORDAN, Circuit Judges, and GRAHAM, [*] District Judge.
Handy Land & Timber, LLLP (Handy Land) sued Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC (Transco) in Georgia state court, alleging state tort claims, for Transco's removal and sale of trees from an easement on Handy Land's property. Handy Land also sought a temporary restraining order, which the district court denied. Transco removed the action to federal court and moved to dismiss the case. The district court denied Handy Land's motion to remand and granted Transco's motion to dismiss. After the benefit of oral argument, we affirm.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) issued a certificate (FERC Certificate) approving Transco's construction of a natural gas pipeline extension under the Natural Gas Act. 15 U.S.C. § 717f. Transco initiated condemnation proceedings in federal court to acquire easements along the pipeline route, which included Handy Land's property, and obtained a preliminary injunction granting access to the property under its FERC Certificate.1
Transco removed trees within its easement on Handy Land's property and sold the timber for profit. Handy Land filed suit against Transco in Georgia state court, claiming trespass to chattels, money had and received, and trover. Handy Land sought (1) to enjoin the removal and sale of trees, or alternatively, recover damages, and (2) a temporary restraining order (TRO) to stop Transco's removal of trees. Transco removed the action to federal court, and Handy Land moved to remand the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; the district court denied Handy Land's motion.
Transco filed a motion to dismiss Handy Land's suit. Handy Land did not file a response. The district court denied Handy Land's motion for a TRO and granted Transco's motion...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP