Central Power Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Barnett et al

Filing 75

ORDER re Consolidation of Cases by Magistrate Judge Charles S. Miller, Jr. (BG)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA NORTHWESTERN DIVISION David Houle and Becky Houle, et. al., Plaintiffs, vs. Central Power Electric Cooperative, Inc., (CPEC), et. al., CPEC vs. Cecil L. Jeannotte, et. al., CPEC vs. Corey J. Hall, et. al., CPEC vs. Cecil L. Jeannotte, et. al., CPEC vs. Howard Longie, et. al., CPEC vs. Est of Marie M. Jeanotte, et. al., CPEC vs. Donna M. Anderson, et. al., CPEC vs. Pete Barnett, et. al., CPEC vs. John E. Monette, et. al., CPEC vs. Ophelia Dixon Navarro, et. al., CPEC vs. Kimberly Blackwell, et. al., CPEC vs. Dustin Decoteau, et. al., CPEC vs. Nick K. Wilkie, et. al., CPEC vs. Gloria Davis, et. al., Defendants. Plaintiff, Defendants. Plaintiff, Defendants. Plaintiff, Defendants. Plaintiff, Defendants. Plaintiff, Defendants. Plaintiff, Defendants. Plaintiff, Defendants. Plaintiff, Defendants. Plaintiff, Defendants. Plaintiff, Defendants. Plaintiff, Defendants. Plaintiff, Defendants. Plaintiff, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ORDER RE PARTIAL CONSOLIDATION OF CASES Case No. 4:09-cv-021 Case No. 4:11-cv-055 Case No. 4:11-cv-061 Case No. 4:11-cv-073 Case No. 4:11-cv-076 Case No. 4:11-cv-077 Case No. 4:11-cv-078 Case No. 4:11-cv-084 Case No. 4:11-cv-098 Case No. 4:11-cv-100 Case No. 4:11-cv-101 Case No. 4:12-cv-004 Case No. 4:12-cv-005 Case No. 4:12-cv-006 The court previously ordered the partial consolidation of twelve cases that involve 1 condemnation of easements for a 69 kV high-voltage power line across portions of the Turtle Mountain Indian Reservation. CPEC has filed two additional condemnation actions – CPEC v. Nick Wilkie, et. al., Case No. 4:12-cv-005, and CPEC v. Gloria Davis, et. al., Case No. 4:12-cv-006 – that involve the condemnation of easements for the same powerline. The court, on its own motion, ORDERS: 1 The above captioned cases are consolidated for the limited purposes of briefing and conducting a joint trial on the issues of “use and necessity” as well as for briefing of issues that are common to all of the cases that the court may identify. The parties may use a joint caption for such purposes, but, absent further direction from the court, the pleadings shall be filed electronically in all cases in which the pleadings apply. 2. In all of the cases where the issues of “use and necessity” are an issue or where the parties otherwise contest the right of Central Power to maintain its 69 kV line on their property, the parties shall have until July 1, 2012, to file a brief on the issue of whether or not the court may consider these issues. If the court decides that a trial is necessary on the issues of “use and necessity” and the right of Central Power to maintain its line in the location where it has been constructed, a joint court trial will be conducted on those issues beginning on November 13, 2013, at 9:30 a.m. at the United States Courthouse in Bismarck, North Dakota. Currently, five days have been set aside for the trial. 3. In addition, the court has identified another common issue that the parties should 2 submit a brief with respect to on or before July 1, 2012. The issue is whether 25 U.S.C. § 357 has been superseded by the provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 71.1 with respect to the incorporation of state law. A number of courts have ruled in other contexts that federal statutes incorporating state condemnation procedures have been superseded. E.g., 26 East Tennessee Natural Gas Co. v. Groforth, 361 F.3d 814, 822 (4th Cir. 2004). 4. The court shall in the future file a separate scheduling order in each case where no scheduling and discovery deadlines have been established. Dated this 27th day of March, 2012. /s/ Charles S. Miller, Jr. Charles S. Miller, Jr. United States Magistrate Judge 3