As we noted recently, we don't usually post trial court decisions. But there are exceptions. The Northern District of Florida's recent order in Sabal Trail Transmission, LLC v. Real Estate, No. 16-cv-00063-MW-GRJ (June 5, 2017), is one of those exceptions.
First of all, our New York City colleague Michael Rikon beat us to the punch, and posted a summary of the case on his blog yesterday. Read it.
The issue, as Michael notes, is whether federal or state law applies in a federal Natural Gas Act taking by a private pipeline in federal court. In Sabal Trail, the big difference why choice of law matters is that under the Fifth Amendment, just compensation does not include attorneys' and other fees, while under Florida's "full compensation" provision (which we noted here), a property owner may recover fees and costs.
The District Court rejected the pipeline's request for summary judgment, and concluded that Florida law, not federal, applied. One of the reasons we recommend you read this decision is the way its written. The District Judge starts off by noting that this condemnation case presents a civil rights issue. See slip op. at 1 ("That rights in property are basic civil rights has long been recognized.") (quoting Lynch v. Household Fin. Corp., 405 U.S. 538, 552 (1972)). See also slip op. at 20-22 ("But at an even more basic level, property rights have long been recognized as sacred and fundamental...the Supreme Court has also stressed that property rights are just as fundamental others--including, again, the right to liberty.").
The court held that there is not need for a uniform federal rule, thus no reason to disturb the usual presumption that in these cases, state law governs. The other reason to add this case to your data banks is the opinion's discussion of how other federal courts have approached the same issue. See slip op. at 12-17.
Noting also that the condemnor made "a boatload of argument to the contrary" (and that "none of them hold water"), the court concluded federal procedural law governed the way the litigation will be conducted, but that Florida's substantive law governed the outcome of what law controls compensation for the taking.
Finally, we note this pithy observation: "condemnation," the court correctly noted, "is not akin to marriage -- it is far from a joyous affair," slip op. at 22, and maybe neither party will like the eventual outcome:
Defendants are having their property unilaterally taken from them, while Plaintiffs are being forced to pay more for that property than they feel the law requires.
Slip op. at 22.
True, Your Honor, true.
Congratulations to our Florida OCA colleague Andrew Brigham, who represents the successful property owner.
Order Denying Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, Sabal Trail Transmission, LLC v. Real Estate...
