SABAL TRAIL TRANSMISSION LLC v. REAL ESTATE et al

Filing 88

ORDER granting Motions for Partial Summary Judgment and Motions for Preliminary Injunction in 4:16-cv-97; 4:16-cv-99; 4:16-cv-102; 4:16-cv-103; 4:16-cv-104; 4:16-cv-105; 4:16-cv-107; 4:16-cv-108; 4:16-cv-109; 4:1 6-cv-110; 4:16-cv-113; 4:16-cv-114; 4:16-cv-119; 4:16-cv-121; 4:16-cv-122; 4:16-cv-123; 4:16-cv-124; 4:16-cv-125; 4:16-cv-126; denying Motions to Dismiss in 4:16-cv-99 and 4:16-cv-119; finding moot Motion to Strike in 4:16-cv-113; ordering proposed scheduling order. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE CLAY D LAND on 06/10/2016. (CCL)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
COLUMBUS DIVISION
SABAL TRAIL TRANSMISSION, LLC,

*
CASE NOS.
4:16-cv-97
4:16-cv-99
4:16-cv-102
4:16-cv-103
4:16-cv-104
4:16-cv-105
4:16-cv-107
4:16-cv-108
4:16-cv-109
4:16-cv-110

Plaintiff,
*
vs.
*
REAL ESTATE, et al.,
*
Defendants.
*
*

4:16-cv-113
4:16-cv-114
4:16-cv-119
4:16-cv-121
4:16-cv-122
4:16-cv-123
4:16-cv-124
4:16-cv-125
4:16-cv-126

O R D E R
Plaintiff

Sabal

Trail

Transmission,

LLC

received

authorization from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to
build an interstate natural gas pipeline that will extend through
Alabama, Georgia, and Florida.

To complete construction of the

pipeline, Sabal Trail must acquire easements across each parcel
of

land

along

the

pipeline’s

path.

Sabal

Trail

has

already

acquired at least 90% of the easements it needs in Georgia but
has been unable to acquire the remaining necessary easements by
agreement with the property owners.
Sabal Trail filed nineteen condemnation actions under the
Natural Gas Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 717 to 717z, seeking to acquire the
necessary easements through eminent domain.1

1

For the most part,

Sabal Trail initially filed thirty-two condemnation actions. Thirteen
of them have been resolved (4:16-cv-98, 4:16-cv-100, 4:16-cv-101, 4:16cv-106, 4:16-cv-111, 4:16-cv-112, 4:16-cv-115, 4:16-cv-116, 4:16-cv117, 4:16-cv-118, 4:16-cv-120, 4:16-cv-127, and 4:16-cv-128).
In

Sabal Trail served the property owners by personal service.

See

Appendix A to this Order.
In

each

summary
across

judgment
the

injunction

to

motions.2

partial

grant

Sabal

Trail

establish

its

properties
Sabal

filed
right

and

Trail

a

a

motion

to

condemn

motion

immediate

for

for

partial

easements

preliminary

possession

of

the

The Court consolidated the actions for a hearing on

summary

argument

to

affected

easements.
the

action,

judgment

motions

and

the

preliminary

injunction

Based on the briefing of the parties and the oral
on

the

motions,

the

Court

summary

judgment

motions

finds

and

that

Sabal

preliminary

Trail’s

injunction

motions should be granted.
DISCUSSION
I.

Partial Summary Judgment Motions – Power to Condemn
A.

Factual Background

Sabal

Trail

Transmission,

LLC

received

a

certificate

of

public convenience and necessity (“FERC Certificate”) from the
Federal

Energy

Regulatory

Commission

(“FERC”)

to

build

an

several other cases (4:16-cv-103, 4:16-cv-114, and 4:16-cv-121), the
parties represented that they were close to a resolution and that a
stipulation of dismissal would likely be filed soon. To date, that has
not happened, and no notice of settlement has been filed, so the Court
will decide the pending motions in those cases.
2
ECF No. 4 in 4:16-cv-00097; ECF No. 7 in 4:16-cv-00099; ECF No. 4 in
4:16-cv-00102; ECF No. 7 in 4:16-cv-00103; ECF No. 4 in 4:16-cv-00104;
ECF No. 4 in 4:16-cv-00105; ECF No. 4 in 4:16-cv-00107; ECF No. 4 in
4:16-cv-00108; ECF No. 4 in 4:16-cv-00109; ECF No. 6 in 4:16-cv-00110;
ECF No. 4 in 4:16-cv-00113; ECF No. 4 in 4:16-cv-00114; ECF No. 4 in
4:16-cv-00119; ECF No. 4 in 4:16-cv-00121; ECF No. 4 in 4:16-cv-00122;
ECF No. 4 in 4:16-cv-00123; ECF No. 7 in 4:16-cv-00124; ECF No. 4 in
4:16-cv-00125; and ECF No. 4 in 4:16-cv-00126.

2

interstate natural gas pipeline that will extend approximately
516.2 miles through Alabama, Georgia, and Florida.

Compl. Ex. 4,

Order Issuing Certificates & Approving Abandonment 92 (Feb. 2,
2016), ECF No. 1-5 in 4:16-cv-97 [hereinafter FERC Certificate]
(issuing

a

“authorizing

certificate
Sabal

of

Trail

public

convenience

Transmission,

LLC

to

and

necessity

construct

and

operate the Sabal Trail Project”); accord Mot. for Partial Summ.
J. Ex. 2, Gonzales Decl. ¶ 10, ECF No. 4-2 in 4:16-cv-97.3
examined

the

need

for

possible

alternative

the

routes

project,
for

the

the

proposed

project,

the

FERC

route

and

project’s

environmental impacts, land use issues, and safety measures; FERC
also considered public comments it received about the proposed
project.

See generally FERC Certificate.

FERC found that the

Sabal Trail “project’s benefits to the market will outweigh any
adverse effects on other pipelines and their captive customers,
and

on

landowners

and

surrounding

communities”

and

concluded

“that the public convenience and necessity requires approval of”
Sabal Trail’s project.
approved

the

path

of

FERC Certificate 28 ¶ 88.
the

submitted by Sabal Trail.

pipeline

based

on

FERC also

alignment

sheets

See, e.g., FERC Certificate App. B 103

3

In the nineteen pending actions, Sabal Trail filed motions and briefs
that are nearly identical with regard to the common issues.
Sabal
Trail also filed exhibits that appear to be identical with regard to
the common issues in these actions.
Where it is necessary for the
Court to cite Sabal Trail’s motion, brief, or exhibits regarding a
common issue, the Court cites the motion, brief, or exhibits filed in
the first-filed action, 4:16-cv-97.

3

¶ 4 (noting that “authorized facility locations shall be as shown
in the [environmental impact statement], as supplemented by filed
alignment sheets”); see also Final Environmental Impact Statement
§

2,

Description

of

the

Proposed

Action,

http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/file_list.asp?accession_num=201512
18-4001

(describing

alignment

facilities

sheets);

Recommendations,

accord

and
id.

explaining
§

5,

how

to

access

Conclusions

and

http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/file_list.asp?

accession_num=20151218-4001.
Phase I of Sabal Trail’s project has a proposed in-service
date of May 1, 2017.
¶ 10.

FERC Certificate 6 ¶ 20; Gonzales Decl.

To meet the proposed in-service date, Sabal Trail must

begin construction of the pipeline by June 21, 2016.
Decl.

¶ 13.

complete

Before

certain

construction

begins,

pre-construction

Sabal

activities,

Gonzales

Trail
and

activities need to be completed as soon as possible.

must
those

Id.

To complete construction of the pipeline, Sabal Trail needs
to

acquire

pipeline’s

easements
path.

across

Although

each
Sabal

parcel
Trail

of

was

land
able

along
to

the

purchase

easements from most of the property owners along the pipeline’s
path,

Sabal

necessary

Trail

easements

has
by

been

unable

agreement

to
with

acquire
the

the

property

remaining
owners.

Therefore, Sabal Trail seeks to acquire the remaining necessary
easements by eminent domain and seeks immediate possession of

4

those easements so that it may undertake the pre-construction
activities and then start construction.
filed

condemnation

actions

in

To that end, Sabal Trail

Alabama,

Georgia,

and

Florida,

including the nineteen actions pending in this Court.
B.

Eminent Domain Proceedings Under the Natural Gas Act

The Natural Gas Act authorizes FERC to consider and approve
applications to build interstate natural gas pipelines.
FERC

finds

required

that

by

a

the

proposed
present

pipeline

project

future

public

or

“is

or

Once

will

convenience

be
and

necessity” and that the FERC certificate applicant “is able and
willing

properly

proposed,”

FERC

convenience

and

to

do

the

issues

the

acts

and

applicant

necessity.

15

to
a

U.S.C. §

perform

the

certificate
717f(e).

service

of
If

public
a

FERC

certificate holder cannot acquire a necessary easement for its
pipeline

by

contract,

or

if

the

certificate

holder

and

the

property owner cannot agree on the compensation to be paid for
the easement, then the FERC certificate holder “may acquire the
[easement] by the exercise of the right of eminent domain.”

15

U.S.C. § 717f(h).
In eminent domain proceedings, the district court’s role is
to

evaluate

the

scope

of

the

FERC

certificate

and

order

condemnation of property as authorized by the certificate.

E.g.,

Kan. Pipeline Co. v. 200 Foot by 250 Foot Piece of Land, 210 F.
Supp. 2d 1253, 1256 (D. Kan. 2002); accord Williams Nat. Gas Co.

5

v.

City

Columbia

of
Gas

Okla.

City,

890

Transmission

F.2d

Corp.

v.

255,
An

264

(10th

Easement

to

Cir.

1989);

Construct,

Operate & Maintain a 24-Inch Pipeline Across Props. in Shenandoah
Cty., Va., No. 5:07CV04009, 2008 WL 2439889, at *2 (W.D. Va. June
9, 2008) (collecting cases).

Challenges to a FERC certificate

may not be brought in the district court; if a party is aggrieved
by an order issued by FERC, review must be sought in the Court of
Appeals.

15 U.S.C. § 717r(b).

Generally, a party may exercise the federal power of eminent
domain under § 717f(h) once three requirements are met: (1) the
party holds a FERC certificate authorizing a natural gas pipeline
project, (2) the FERC certificate concludes that the property to
be taken is necessary for the pipeline project, and (3) the party
cannot acquire the easements by contract.

See, e.g., Columbia

Gas Transmission, LLC v. 1.01 Acres, More or Less, 768 F.3d 300,
304 (3d Cir. 2014), cert. denied sub nom. Brown v. Columbia Gas
Transmission, LLC, 135 S. Ct. 2051 (2015) (“[A] certificate of
public convenience and necessity gives its holder the ability to
obtain automatically the necessary right of way through eminent
domain,

with

the

only

open

issue

being

the

compensation

the

landowner defendant will receive in return for the easement.”).4

4

Several Defendants assert that Sabal Trail does not have standing to
exercise eminent domain under § 717f(h) because Sabal Trail is not yet
an operational natural gas company. This argument lacks merit.
The
eminent domain right extends to “any holder of a certificate of public
convenience and necessity.”
15 U.S.C. § 717f(h).
Sabal Trail holds

6

The district courts “only have jurisdiction of cases when the
amount

claimed

by

the

owner

of

the

exceeds $3,000.” 15 U.S.C. § 717f(h).

property

to

be

condemned

If there is no genuine

fact dispute about whether the three statutory requirements for
condemnation are met, then the Court may grant summary judgment
on this issue, and the only remaining issue is what constitutes
just compensation for the taking.

E.g., Kan. Pipeline Co., 210

F. Supp. 2d at 1258; accord All. Pipeline L.P. v. 2.679 Acres of
Land, 911 F. Supp. 2d 816, 824 (D.N.D. 2012).
C.

Why Partial Summary Judgment Is Appropriate Here

In
Court,

the
there

certificate.
least

$3,000

nineteen
is

no

condemnation
dispute

actions

that

Sabal

pending
Trail

before

holds

a

this
FERC

There is no dispute that Sabal Trail offered at
for

each

property

but

was

unable

to

obtain

the

necessary easements or was unable to agree on the compensation to
be paid for the easements.

And there is no serious dispute that

FERC concluded that the land to be taken is necessary for the
pipeline project.
for

the

pipeline

As discussed above, FERC authorized the path
project—a

path

that

crosses

Defendants’

such a certificate, and FERC found that Sabal Trail will be a “natural
gas company” within the meaning of the Natural Gas Act.
FERC
Certificate 3 ¶ 7.
Several Defendants also assert that Sabal Trail’s condemnation
actions are premature because FERC granted several parties’ rehearing
requests. But the “filing of an application for rehearing . . . shall
not, unless specifically ordered by the Commission, operate as a stay
of the Commission’s order.” 15 U.S.C. § 717r(c).
Moreover, although
rehearing has been granted, nothing in the present record suggests that
FERC granted a stay.
Therefore, the rehearing grant does not require
that the Court refrain from ruling on the pending motions.

7

properties.
permanent

To complete the project, Sabal Trail must acquire
easements

easements.

and

temporary

construction

workspace

In summary, the three requirements for condemnation

are met.5
Some Defendants argue that Sabal Trail is not entitled to
summary

judgment

because

(1)

several

proposed

easement

terms

exceed the scope of the FERC Certificate, (2) Sabal Trail has not
established that it cannot acquire the property by contract, and
(3) Sabal Trail did not adequately describe the property interest
to be taken.

None of these issues precludes partial summary

judgment.
The

Court

notes

that

two

arguments in motions to dismiss.

Defendants

presented

their

See Graham Co. Mot. to Dismiss,

ECF No. 25 in 4:16-cv-99; M. Barge-Ra’Oof Mot. to Dismiss, ECF
No.

13

in

4:16-cv-119.6

Federal

Rule

of

Civil

Procedure

71.1(e)(2) states that a defendant with “an objection or defense
to

the

taking

must

serve

an

5

answer”

to

the

notice

of

As discussed in Appendix A to this Order, a number of Defendants did
not answer the notice of condemnation or make any other filing with the
Court regarding this action.
“A defendant waives all objections and
defenses not stated in its answer.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 71.1(e)(3). And,
failure to answer “constitutes consent to the taking and to the court’s
authority to proceed with the action and fix the compensation.”
Fed.
R. Civ. P. 71.1(d)(2)(A)(vi).
A defendant who does not answer may
still “present evidence on the amount of compensation to be paid and
may share in the award.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 71.1(e)(3).
6
Graham Company also filed an answer setting forth its objections and
defenses.
Mae Ola Alston Barge-Ra’Oof, who is proceeding pro se, did
not file an answer, though she did file a Motion to Dismiss stating her
objections and defenses to the taking.
The Court construes BargeRa’Oof’s pro se Motion to Dismiss as an answer.

8

condemnation.

“No

other

pleading

or

motion

additional objection or defense is allowed.”
71.1(e)(3).

Therefore,

the

proper

asserting

an

Fed. R. Civ. P.

vehicle

for

asserting

objections and defenses to a taking is the answer, not a motion
to dismiss or a counterclaim.

The Court thus denies Defendants’

Motions to Dismiss (ECF No. 25 in 4:16-cv-99; ECF No. 13 in 4:16cv-119).
1.

Scope of the Proposed Easement Terms

Sabal Trail submitted proposed easement terms as an exhibit
to each Complaint.

E.g., Compl. Ex. 2, Proposed Easement Terms,

ECF No. 1-3 in 4:16-cv-97.

Based on the Court’s review, the

proposed easement terms mirror proposed easement agreements that
were given to Defendants during negotiations.

Compare id. with

Mot. for Summ. J. Ex. C, Letter from Tony Dieste to Sandra Jones
(Mar. 1, 2016) Attach. 1, Proposed Grant of Easement, ECF No. 4-3
at 18-19 in 4:16-cv-97.

Several Defendants argue that these

proposed terms exceed the scope of the FERC Certificate because
they state that Sabal Trail may relocate the pipeline or change
the size of the pipeline and because they provide that Sabal
Trail shall not be liable for damages it causes by keeping the
right-of-way clear.
Although

Sabal

Trail

may

certainly

attempt

to

purchase

easements broader than the scope of the FERC Certificate, Sabal
Trail cannot condemn easements outside the scope of the FERC

9

Certificate and cannot undertake any pipeline projects that have
not been approved by FERC.

E.g., Williston Basin Interstate

Pipeline Co. v. An Exclusive Gas Storage Leasehold & Easement in
the Cloverly Subterranean Geological Formation, 524 F.3d 1090,
1097 (9th Cir. 2008); Columbia Gas Transmission Corp., 2008 WL
2439889, at *3; Tenn. Gas Pipeline Co. v. 104 Acres of Land More
or Less, 749 F. Supp. 427, 431-32 (D.R.I. 1990).

A condition of

Sabal Trail’s FERC Certificate is that Sabal Trail’s exercise of
eminent

domain

facilities

and

“must

be

locations”

consistent
set

forth

FERC Certificate 103, App. B ¶ 4.

with
in

the

the[]
FERC

authorized
Certificate.

Also, Sabal Trail’s “right of

eminent domain . . . does not authorize it to increase the size
of

its

natural

gas

pipeline/facilities

to

accommodate

future

needs or to acquire a right-of-way for a pipeline to transport a
commodity

other

than

natural

gas.”

Id.

Accordingly,

Sabal

Trail’s right of condemnation is restricted to the terms of the
FERC Certificate, and thus the easement terms shall be limited to
those rights authorized by the FERC Certificate.

This issue does

not preclude partial summary judgment on Sabal Trail’s right to
condemn; at this stage in the litigation, the Court need not
draft the final easement terms to be recorded as a Grant of
Easement.

The Court will address this issue when it takes up the

compensation issue.

10

2.
Several
established
contract.

Ability to Acquire Property by Contract
Defendants
that

it

is

argue

that

unable

to

Sabal
acquire

Trail
the

has

not

property

by

These Defendants contend that Sabal Trail must engage

in good faith negotiations before eminent domain proceedings may
take place under § 717f(h).

Most courts that have examined this

issue

good

have

concluded

that

required, and the Court agrees.
L.L.C.

v.

Decoulos,

146

F.

faith

negotiations

are

not

See, e.g., Mars. & Ne. Pipeline,
App'x

495,

498

(1st

Cir.

2005)

(collecting cases finding no good faith negotiation requirement);
Guardian Pipeline, L.L.C. v. 529.42 Acres of Land, 210 F. Supp.
2d 971, 973-74 (N.D. Ill. 2002) (noting that Natural Gas Act does
not have a “specific requirement” for good faith negotiations and
that the court is “unaware of any case in which condemnation has
been denied or even delayed because of an alleged failure to
engage in good faith negotiations”).

But see Transcon. Gas Pipe

Line Corp. v. 118 Acres of Land, 745 F. Supp. 366, 369 (E.D. La.
1990) (relying on Louisiana state law in finding that good faith
negotiations are required but holding that the pipeline company
had satisfied this requirement by contacting each landowner at
least twice and offering an amount greater than the appraised
value

as

determined

by

appraisers).

Even

if

good

faith

negotiations were required (which they are not), Sabal Trail did
attempt to negotiate with the property owners by contacting them

11

at

least

twice

and

offering

to

pay

more

than

Sabal

Trail’s

appraised value of the permanent and temporary easements.

See,

e.g., Mot. for Summ. J. Ex. 2, Norman Decl. Ex. C, Letter from
Tony Dieste to Sandra Jones (Mar. 1, 2016), ECF No. 4-3 at 16-17
in 4:16-cv-97 (extending a second offer of $85,000 for easements
with an appraised value of $11,791); see also App. B to this
Order (summarizing final offers).
preclude

partial

summary

judgment

Thus, this issue does not
on

Sabal

Trail’s

right

to

condemn.
Two property owners contend that they have already agreed to
grant an easement and have agreed on a price.

First, Timbervest

Partners Stewart II, LLC asserts that it agreed on a price for
the easement but acknowledges that it did not agree to certain
terms Sabal Trail sought.

Def. Timbervest Partners Stewart II,

LLC’s Resp. to Pl.’s Mot. for Summ. J. 8-9, ECF No. 22 in 4:16cv-103.

Therefore, Sabal Trail has not been able to acquire the

easement from Timbervest Partners Stewart II, LLC.7
Ola

Alston

Barge-Ra’Oof

asserts

that

she

and

Second, Mae
seven

other

individuals who hold an interest in property that was part of the
Estate of Richard and Bobbie Alston reached an agreement with
Sabal

Trail

for

an

easement

over

the

property.

Def.

Ra’Oof’s Mot. to Dismiss ¶ 2, ECF No. 13 in 4:16-cv-119.

7

BargeBut,

At the hearing on the pending motions, Sabal Trail represented that it
had reached an agreement with Timbervest Partners Stewart II, LLC and
that the case would be dismissed; that has not yet happened.

12

according to Sabal Trail, additional individuals hold (or may
hold) an interest in the property, and there is nothing in the
present record establishing that Sabal Trail reached an agreement
with all of the owners of the property.

Therefore, Sabal Trail

has not been able to acquire an easement from the Estate of
Richard and Bobbie Alston or its beneficiaries. This issue does
not preclude partial summary judgment on Sabal Trail’s right to
condemn.
3.

Adequacy of the Property Description

A number of Defendants contend that Sabal Trail has not
provided a sufficient description of the easement to be taken.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 71.1(d)(2)(A) requires that the
notice

of

condemnation

“describe

the

property

sufficiently

identify it” and must state “the interest to be taken.”8

to
In

Southern Natural Gas Co. v. Land, Cullman County, 197 F.3d 1368,
1375

(11th

description

Cir.

1999)

because

for
(a)

example,
the

there

complaint

was
for

a

sufficient
condemnation

“incorporate[ed] both a legal description and a plat map showing
the placement of the pipeline and relevant easements” and (b)

8

Some Defendants argue that Georgia law governs the legal description
requirements because the Natural Gas Act says that the “practice and
procedure” in condemnation proceedings “shall conform as nearly as may
be with the practice and procedure in similar action or proceeding in
the
courts
of
the
State
where
the
property
is
situated.”
15 U.S.C. § 717f(h). However, the Eleventh Circuit has held that Rule
71.1’s predecessor, Rule 71A, supersedes the Natural Gas Act’s practice
and procedure clause. S. Nat. Gas Co. v. Land, Cullman Cty., 197 F.3d
1368, 1375 (11th Cir. 1999).
Based on this precedent, Rule 71.1
governs.

13

“the [federal land] commissioners, the parties, and the lawyers
have walked the centerline of the easement from one end of the
. . . property to the other, and no one had any problem locating
the easement.”9

Here, in some cases, Sabal Trail provided metes

and bounds descriptions of the permanent and temporary easements
and staked the easements on the property.
Order.

See App. B to this

In other cases, where the property owners did not object

to the adequacy of the description, Sabal Trail provided a legal
description
detailed

of

the

drawing

property

showing

the

where

easements
the

will

permanent

cross
and

and

a

temporary

easements cross the property, as well as a copy of the FERCapproved alignment sheets.

See id.

The Court has reviewed Sabal

Trail’s description of each easement and is satisfied that Sabal
Trail has provided a sufficient description of each easement.
Thus, this issue does not preclude partial summary judgment on
Sabal Trail’s right to condemn.
D.

Summary

As discussed above, there is no genuine fact dispute on any
of the three statutory requirements.

Sabal Trail holds a FERC

certificate, the easements sought are necessary for the pipeline

9

Several Defendants argue that even if Sabal Trail did adequately
describe the easements, Sabal Trail’s proposed easement terms state
that the easement location will not be fixed until the pipeline is
installed, suggesting that Sabal Trail may attempt to move the path of
the pipeline.
The Court has not adopted this proposed easement term,
however, and Sabal Trail cannot relocate the pipeline without
permission from FERC.

14

project, and Sabal Trail has been unable to acquire the necessary
easements by contract.

In sum, Sabal Trail has established as a

matter of law that it has a right to condemn the easements under
the Natural Gas Act.

Accordingly, Sabal Trail’s motions for

partial summary judgment are granted.
II.

Sabal Trail’s Preliminary Injunction Motions
Sabal

Trail

asserts

that

if

it

is

entitled

to

exercise

eminent domain as a matter of law, then the Court should grant
Sabal Trail immediate possession of the temporary and permanent
easements
Trail

before

can

just

begin

compensation

pre-construction

proceedings

and

so

that

construction

Sabal

activities.

Although the Natural Gas Act does not confer a “quick-take” right
like

the

Declaration

of

Taking

Act

does,

authority

exists

supporting a natural gas company’s right to “obtain immediate
possession

through

injunction.”
(4th

Cir.

(reversing

the

equitable

remedy

of

a

preliminary

E. Tenn. Nat. Gas Co. v. Sage, 361 F.3d 808, 818

2004);

accord,

district

e.g.,

court’s

1.01

denial

Acres,

of

768

F.3d

preliminary

at

304

injunction

where pipeline company was entitled to summary judgment on the
right of eminent domain); All. Pipeline L.P. v. 4.360 Acres of
Land,

More

or

Less,

746

F.3d

362,

368-69

(8th

Cir.

2014)

(affirming grant of motion for immediate use and possession where
pipeline company was entitled to summary judgment on the right of
eminent

domain).

The

Court

15

is

persuaded

that

immediate

possession should be permitted after the gas company is granted
summary

judgment

on

its

right

to

condemn

and

deposits

the

estimated fair market value of the condemned property with the
court.

See Transwestern Pipeline Co. v. 17.19 Acres of Prop.

Located in Maricopa Cty., 550 F.3d 770, 776-77 (9th Cir. 2008)
(affirming

denial

condemnation

but

of

immediate

suggesting

possession

that

absent

immediate

an

order

possession

of

may

be

granted after a court grants summary judgment on the condemnation
issue and the gas company deposits the estimated fair market
value of the condemnation with the court).
Here,

Sabal

Trail

preliminary injunction.

seeks

immediate

possession

through

a

Before a preliminary injunction may be

issued, the party seeking the injunction must show that: “(1) it
has

a

substantial

(2) irreparable

likelihood

injury

will

be

of

success

suffered

on

unless

the
the

merits;

injunction

[is] issue[d]; (3) the threatened injury to the movant outweighs
whatever damage the proposed injunction may cause the opposing
party; and (4) if issued, the injunction would not be adverse to
the public interest.”

Siegel v. LePore, 234 F.3d 1163, 1176

(11th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (per curiam).
A.

Likelihood of Success on the Merits

As discussed above, the Court finds that Sabal Trail has a
right

to

condemn

the

easements.

Therefore,

the

Court

has

concluded not merely that Sabal Trail is likely to succeed on the

16

merits but that Sabal Trail has succeeded on the merits of its
claims; the only remaining issue is how much Sabal Trail must pay
for the easements.
B.

Irreparable Injury

Sabal Trail presented evidence that Phase I of its project
has a proposed in-service date of May 1, 2017.
¶ 10.

Gonzales Decl.

To meet the proposed in-service date, Sabal Trail must

begin construction of the pipeline by June 21, 2016.
Before

construction

pre-construction

begins,

activities,

Sabal
and

completed as soon as possible.

Trail
those

Id.

must

Id. ¶ 13.

complete

activities

certain

need

to

be

If immediate possession is

not granted and construction cannot begin by June 21, Sabal Trail
will incur substantial delay costs, and its proposed in-service
date would be jeopardized.

Id. ¶¶ 22-25.

The Court finds that

this evidence is sufficient to establish that Sabal Trail will
suffer irreparable harm if it is not granted immediate possession
of the easements.

See 1.01 Acres, 768 F.3d at 316 (finding

irreparable harm because delay in possession would likely cause
significant

economic

losses

and

potential

liability

concerns

associated with missing the in-service deadline).
Several Defendants contend that Sabal Trail cannot establish
irreparable harm because it had not, as of the time Defendants
filed their briefs, complied with certain conditions in the FERC
Certificate

that

are

required

before

17

construction

can

begin,

including the acquisition of state water crossing licenses and
easements.

Defendants suggest that if Sabal Trail is unable to

satisfy these conditions of the FERC Certificate, they will not
be allowed to complete the project.

This possibility, according

to Defendants, prevents Sabal Trail from establishing that it
will likely suffer irreparable harm if this Court does not grant
the

requested

preliminary

injunctive

conditions are clearly satisfied.
Court

to

no

authority

that

relief

before

those

But Defendants pointed the

every

condition

of

the

FERC

Certificate must be satisfied before the Court declares that the
easements should be condemned and that preliminary construction
work should begin.

It would be speculation to suggest that these

other conditions will not be satisfied in due course.
are

not,

completing

then
the

Certificate.

Sabal

Trail

project
But

that

for
is

faces

a

failure
a

risk

prohibition
to

Trail

by

FERC

from

with

comply

Sabal

If they

the

FERC

is

apparently

willing to assume, and the Court finds that these circumstances
do not diminish the irreparable harm that Sabal Trail will suffer
if it is not allowed to proceed at this time.

In summary, the

Court concludes that Sabal Trail would suffer irreparable harm
without a grant of immediate possession.
C.

Weighing the Interests

Since the Court has determined that Sabal Trail has a right
to condemn the easements, the only loss to Defendants associated

18

with the granting of the preliminary injunctive relief is the
loss of possession that “would still be disturbed, albeit at a
later time, if just compensation was determined first.”
361 F.3d at 829.
adequate

Sabal Trail acknowledges that it must provide

security

easements.

Sage,

to

obtain

immediate

possession

of

the

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(c) (“The court may issue a

preliminary injunction or a temporary restraining order only if
the movant gives security in an amount that the court considers
proper to pay the costs and damages sustained by any party found
to have been wrongfully enjoined or restrained.”); see also Sage,
361

F.3d

at

824

(noting

reasonable,

certain,

compensation

before

that

and
his

a

landowner

adequate
occupancy

“is

provision
is

entitled

for

to

obtaining

disturbed”)

(quoting

Cherokee Nation v. S. Kan. Ry. Co., 135 U.S. 641, 659 (1890)).
As a number of courts have concluded, the harm to landowners of
possession

before

just

compensation

proceedings

is

“slight

at

best” if the pipeline company deposits money or a bond with the
court as a security for the immediate possession.

E.g., Sage,

361 F.3d at 826, 829.
For each property, Sabal Trail proposes a security bond in
an amount equal to twice Sabal Trail’s appraised value of the
Defendants’ property interests to be condemned.
more

detail

in

Appendix

B,

many

Defendants

Trail’s appraisal is below market value.

19

As discussed in
argue

that

Sabal

But the Defendants

pointed to no evidence suggesting that security in the amount of
twice the appraised value is inadequate.

Therefore, based on the

present record, Sabal Trail shall provide security in the amount
of twice the appraised value of Defendants’ property interests.
Sabal Trail may provide this security by posting security bonds
with the Clerk of the Court in the amounts set forth in Appendix
C to this Order.10

Once Sabal Trail provides adequate security

for the immediate possession, any harm to the landowners will be
outweighed by Sabal Trail’s immediate need for possession.
D.

The Public Interest

In issuing the FERC Certificate to Sabal Trail, FERC found
that

the

Sabal

Trail

“project’s

benefits

to

the

market

will

outweigh any adverse effects on other pipelines and their captive
customers,

and

on

concluded

“that

landowners

the

public

and

surrounding

convenience

approval of” Sabal Trail’s project.

and

communities”

necessity

and

requires

FERC Certificate 28 ¶ 88.

Therefore, FERC found that the pipeline will serve the public
interest.

Sabal Trail has established that it needs immediate

possession

of

the

easements

so

service date for the pipeline.
concludes

that

Sabal

Trail’s

it

may

meet

the

proposed

in-

For these reasons, the Court
immediate

possession

of

the

easements is not adverse to the public interest.

10

None of the Defendants objected to security in the form of a bond as
opposed to a deposit with the Court.

20

E.

Summary

In sum, Sabal Trail is entitled to immediate possession of
the easements once it posts proper security bonds with the Clerk
of the Court for each condemned property.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the Court grants Sabal
Trail’s motions for partial summary judgment (ECF No. 4 in 4:16cv-00097; ECF No. 7 in 4:16-cv-00099; ECF No. 4 in 4:16-cv-00102;
ECF No. 7 in 4:16-cv-00103; ECF No. 4 in 4:16-cv-00104; ECF No. 4
in 4:16-cv-00105; ECF No. 4 in 4:16-cv-00107; ECF No. 4 in 4:16cv-00108; ECF No. 4 in 4:16-cv-00109; ECF No. 6 in 4:16-cv-00110;
ECF No. 4 in 4:16-cv-00113; ECF No. 4 in 4:16-cv-00114; ECF No. 4
in 4:16-cv-00119; ECF No. 4 in 4:16-cv-00121; ECF No. 4 in 4:16cv-00122; ECF No. 4 in 4:16-cv-00123; ECF No. 7 in 4:16-cv-00124;
ECF No. 4 in 4:16-cv-00125; ECF No. 4 in 4:16-cv-00126).

Sabal

Trail has the right to condemn the easements as described in
Appendix B.
The Court also grants Sabal Trail’s preliminary injunction
motions.

After Sabal Trail posts proper security bonds with the

Clerk of the Court in the amounts set forth in Appendix C, Sabal
Trail shall have immediate access to the easements as described
in Appendix B for the purpose of pre-installation activities and
construction

of

the

pipeline

in

Certificate.

21

accordance

with

the

FERC

The Court denies Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss (ECF No. 25
in 4:16-cv-99; ECF No. 13 in 4:16-cv-119).

The Court notes Sabal

Trail’s objection to an exhibit attached to the Bell Defendants’
response brief; the Court did not rely on the exhibit in reaching
its decision, so the Motion to Strike (ECF No. 19 in 4:16-cv-113)
is denied as moot.
Within

twenty-one

days

of

the

date

of

this

Order,

the

parties in each case shall confer and present to the Court a
proposed scheduling order setting forth (1) what discovery is
necessary

on

the

compensation

issue,

(2)

proposed

discovery

deadlines, and (3) any other deadlines that must be established
to bring these actions to judgment.

IT IS SO ORDERED, this 10th day of June, 2016.
s/Clay D. Land
CLAY D. LAND
CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

22

APPENDIX A: Service and Answers
I.

4:16-cv-97 (Sandra Yarbrough Jones)
Sandra

Yarbrough

Jones

was

served

with

the

Complaint,

Notice of Condemnation, and pending motions on April 7, 2016.
Decl. of Proof of Serv. – Jones, ECF No. 68-1 in 4:16-cv-97.
Jones timely answered.

Jones and her attorney attended the

hearing on the pending motions.
II.

4:16-cv-99 (The Graham Company, et al.)1
The Graham Company was served with the Complaint, Notice of

Condemnation, and pending motions on March 23 and 28, 2016.
Decl. of Proof of Serv. – Graham Co., ECF Nos. 17-1 & 17-2 in
4:16-cv-99.

The

Graham

Company

timely

answered,

and

its

attorney appeared at the hearing on the pending motions.
Mitchell Electric Membership Corporation was served with
the Complaint, Notice of Condemnation, and pending motions on
March 30, 2016.

Decl. of Proof of Serv. – Mitchell Electric,

ECF Nos. 17-3 & 18-1 in 4:16-cv-99.

Mitchell Electric did not

answer, so it “waive[d] all objections and defenses” it might
have made to the taking.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 71.1(e)(3).

1

Sabal Trail initially named Georgia Federal Bank as a Defendant but
filed a motion to dismiss the bank without prejudice as unnecessarily
joined, which the Court granted. Sabal Trail also named AT&T Inc. as
a Defendant, but Sabal Trail and AT&T filed a consent motion to
dismiss AT&T with prejudice, and the Court granted the motion.

1

III. 4:16-cv-102 (W. Lynn Lasseter)
W. Lynn Lasseter was served with the Complaint, Notice of
Condemnation, and the pending motions on March 24 and 28, 2016.
Decl. of Proof of Serv. – Lasseter, ECF Nos. 11-1 & 11-2 in
4:16-cv-102.

Lasseter

timely

answered.

Lasseter

and

his

attorney attended the hearing on the pending motions.
IV.

4:16-cv-103 (Timbervest Partners Stewart II, LLC, et al.)
Timbervest Partners Stewart II, LLC was served with the

Complaint, Notice of Condemnation, and pending motions on March
22 and 28, 2016.

Decl. of Proof of Serv. – Timbervest, ECF Nos.

14-1 & 14-2 in 4:16-cv-103.

Timbervest timely answered.

At the

hearing on the pending motions, Sabal Trail represented that it
had reached an agreement with Timbervest and that this case
would be dismissed soon. To date, that has not happened, and the
parties have not filed a notice of settlement.
Dixie

Pipeline

Company

was

served

with

the

Complaint,

Notice of Condemnation, and pending motions on March 22 and 28,
2016.

Decl. of Proof of Serv. – Dixie Pipeline, ECF Nos. 14-5 &

14-6 in 4:16-cv-103.

Dixie Pipeline’s attorney appeared at the

hearing on the pending motions.
Kenneth E. Slay was served with the Complaint, Notice of
Condemnation, and pending motions on March 29, 2016.

Decl. of

Proof of Serv. – Slay, ECF Nos. 14-3 & 14-4 in 4:16-cv-103.
Slay

did

not

answer,

so

he

“waive[d]

2

all

objections

and

defenses” he might have made to the taking.

Fed. R. Civ. P.

71.1(e)(3).
V.

4:16-cv-104 (Kenneth Gregory Isaacs)
Kenneth

Gregory

Isaacs

was

served

with

the

Complaint,

Notice of Condemnation, and pending motions on March 24 and 28,
2016.

Decl. of Proof of Serv. – Isaacs, ECF Nos. 11-1 & 11-2 in

4:16-cv-104.

Isaacs

timely

answered;

he

and

his

attorney

attended the hearing on the pending motions.
VI.

4:16-cv-105 (Frank H. Wingate, et al.)
Frank H. Wingate was served with the Complaint, Notice of

Condemnation, and pending motions on March 26, 2016.

Decl. of

Proof of Serv. – Wingate, ECF Nos. 11-1 & 11-2 in 4:16-cv-105.
Mitchell

Electric

Membership

Corporation

was

served

with

the

Complaint, Notice of Condemnation, and pending motions on March
30, 2016.
11-4

in

Decl. of Proof of Serv. – Wingate, ECF Nos. 11-3 &
4:16-cv-105.

Neither

Wingate

nor

Mitchell

Electric

filed an answer, so they “waive[d] all objections and defenses”
they might have made to the taking.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 71.1(e)(3).

VII. 4:16-cv-107 (G.B.A. Associates, LLC)
G.B.A.

Associates,

LLC

was

served

with

the

Complaint,

Notice of Condemnation, and pending motions on March 24 and 28,
2016.

Decl. of Proof of Serv. – G.B.A. Associates, ECF Nos. 11-

1 & 11-2 in 4:16-cv-107.

G.B.A. Associates timely answered, and

its attorney appeared at the hearing on the pending motions.

3

VIII.

4:16-cv-108 (Estate of Elijah Moore, et al.)
There are twenty-eight Defendants in this action.

As the

Court previously recounted, fourteen Defendants were served in
accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 71.1(d)(3)(A),
and eleven of the Defendants were properly served by publication
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 71.1(d)(3)(B).
Status Report § I, ECF No. 21 in 4:16-cv-108.

Order for

None of these

Defendants filed an answer, so they “waive[d] all objections and
defenses” they might have made to the taking.
71.1(e)(3).
hearing

fairly

Lillian Moore and Alonzo Hill, Jr. attended the

on

easement,

Fed. R. Civ. P.

the

but

and

pending

they

receive

motions.

want

to

just

make

They
sure

do

that

compensation.

not

oppose

they

None

are

of

the

treated

the

other

Defendants attended the hearing.
The Court ordered Sabal Trail to file a status report as to
the

remaining

three

Defendants:

Elijah

Coleman Wheeler, and Terry Jerome Moore.
Sabal

Trail

reported

that

it

had

N.

Wheeler,

Johnnie

In its status report,

researched

these

three

Defendants’ addresses and attempted to serve them, but the three
Defendants could not be served at the addresses Sabal Trail had
for them.

See generally Status Report (May 25, 2016), ECF No.

23 in 4:16-cv-108.
published
Enterprise,

a

notice
Elijah

Sabal Trail further reported that after it
regarding
N.

this

Wheeler

4

action

and

Johnnie

in

The

Camilla

Coleman

Wheeler

contacted

Sabal

Trail

and

have

received

condemnation and other filings via mail.

the

notice

of

Regarding Terry Moore,

Sabal Trail filed a Certificate of Diligent Search certifying
that it had used diligent efforts to find Terry Moore’s address
but was still unable to locate him.

See generally Certificate

of Diligent Search, ECF No. 24-1 in 4:16-cv-108.
Sabal Trail asks the Court to find that Elijah N. Wheeler,
Johnnie

Coleman

Wheeler,

and

Terry

Jerome

Moore

have

been

properly served under Rule 71.1(d)(3)(B) because both Wheelers
have now received a copy of the notice of condemnation and other
pleadings and because Sabal Trail published a notice regarding
this action in The Camilla Enterprise and has now certified that
it was unable to find Terry Moore’s address.

Technically, Rule

71.1(d)(3)(B) requires a certificate of diligent search before
service

by

plaintiff

publication
from

is

attempting

done,
service

presumably
by

to

prevent

publication

performing the required diligent search.

a

without

However, given that

the three statutory requirements for condemnation are met, that
the published notice did list all of the Defendants in this
action,

and

that

there

is

nothing

in

the

present

record

to

refute Sabal Trail’s certification of diligent search, the Court
finds that this issue should not preclude summary judgment or
the preliminary injunction.

The Court leaves for another day

the issue of whether Sabal Trail must do more to ensure that

5

Defendants have actual notice of this action before compensation
proceedings.
IX.

4:16-cv-109 (Earle P. Spurlock, et al.)
Earle P. Spurlock was served with the Complaint, Notice of

Condemnation, and pending motions on April 4, 2016.

Decl. of

Proof of Serv. – Spurlock, ECF No. 12-1 in 4:16-cv-109.
Phillips,

III

was

served

with

the

Complaint,

John T.

Notice

Condemnation, and the pending motions on March 30, 2016.

of

Decl.

of Proof of Serv. – Phillips, ECF Nos. 11-1 & 11-2 in 4:16-cv109.

Spurlock and Phillips timely answered, and their attorney

appeared at the hearing on the pending motions.
Dixie

Pipeline

Company

was

served

with

the

Complaint,

Notice of Condemnation, and pending motions on March 22 and 28,
2016.

Decl. of Proof of Serv. – Dixie Pipeline Co., ECF Nos.

11-3 & 11-4 in 4:16-cv-109.

Dixie Pipeline Co. timely answered,

and its attorney attended the hearing on the pending motions.
X.

4:16-cv-110 (O.J. Stapleton, Jr., et al.)
O.J.

Stapleton,

Jr.’s

attorney

accepted

service

of

the

Complaint, Notice of Condemnation, and pending motions on April
1,

2016.

Acknowledgement

&

Acceptance

Stapleton, Jr., ECF No. 14-1 in 4:16-cv-109.

of

Serv.

–

O.J.

Stapleton timely

answered, and his attorney attended the hearing on the pending
motions.

6

Sumter Electric Membership Corporation and Bank of Terrell
were

served

with

the

Complaint,

Notice

pending motions on March 30, 2016.

of

Condemnation,

and

Decl. of Proof of Serv. –

Sumter Electric Membership Corporation, ECF Nos. 13-1 & 13-2 in
4:16-cv-109; Decl. of Proof of Serv. – Bank of Terrell, ECF Nos.
13-3 & 13-4 in 4:16-cv-109.
Corporation

nor

Bank

of

Neither Sumter Electric Membership
Terrell

filed

an

answer,

so

they

“waive[d] all objections and defenses” they might have made to
the taking.
XI.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 71.1(e)(3).

4:16-cv-113 (James Edwin Bell, II, et al.)
James Edwin Bell, II was served with the Complaint, Notice

of Condemnation, and pending motions on April 5, 2016.

Decl. of

Proof of Serv. – J. Bell, ECF No. 15-1 in 4:16-cv-113.
Adams

Bell

was

served

with

the

Complaint,

Condemnation, and pending motions on March 31, 2016.

Robert

Notice

of

Decl. of

Proof of Serv. – R. Bell, ECF Nos. 13-1 & 13-2 in 4:16-cv-113.
Both

James

and

Robert

Bell

timely

answered;

they

and

their

attorney attended the hearing on the pending motions.
Mitchell County was served with the Complaint, Notice of
Condemnation, and pending motions on March 28, 2016.

Decl. of

Proof of Serv. – Mitchell County, ECF Nos. 15-2 & 15-3 in 4:16cv-113.

The Georgia Department of Revenue was served with the

Complaint, Notice of Condemnation, and pending motions on March
23, 2016 and March 28, 2016.

Decl. of Proof of Serv. – Ga. DOR,

7

ECF Nos. 12-1 & 12-2 in 4:16-cv-113.

Jim H. Andrews was served

by publication on April 13, 2016, which was the date of the
third and final publication of the notice regarding this action
in

The

Camilla

Enterprise.

Copy

of

Published

Condemnation, ECF No. 21-1 in 4:16-cv-113.

Notice

of

Neither Mitchell

County, the Georgia Department of Revenue, nor Andrews filed an
answer, so they have “waive[d] all objections and defenses” they
might have made to the taking.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 71.1(e)(3).

XII. 4:16-cv-114 (Albany Farm, LLC, et al.)2
Albany Farm, LLC was served with the Complaint, Notice of
Condemnation, and pending motions on March 23 and 29, 2016.
Decl. of Proof of Serv. – Albany Farm, ECF Nos. 11-1 & 11-2 in
4:16-cv-99.
appeared

at

Albany
the

Farm

hearing

timely
on

the

answered,
pending

and

its

motions.

attorney
After

the

hearing on the pending motions, Albany Farm represented that it
was

close

to

a

resolution

with

Sabal

Trail

stipulation of dismissal would be filed soon.
not

happened,

and

the

parties

have

not

and

that

a

To date, that has

filed

a

notice

of

settlement.
Dougherty County was served with the Complaint, Notice of
Condemnation, and pending motions on March 29, 2016.

Decl. of

Proof of Serv. – Dougherty Cty., ECF Nos. 11-5 & 11-6 in 4:162

Sabal Trail initially named American Towers, Inc. as a Defendant but
filed a motion to dismiss the company without prejudice as
unnecessarily joined, which the Court granted.

8

cv-114.

Dougherty County did not answer, so it “waive[d] all

objections and defenses” it might have made to the taking.

Fed.

R. Civ. P. 71.1(e)(3).
XIII.

4:16-cv-119 (Estate of Richard and Bobbie Alston, et
al.)
There are twenty-nine Defendants in this action.

As the

Court previously recounted, eighteen Defendants were served in
accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 71.1(d)(3)(A),
and eight of the Defendants were properly served by publication
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 71.1(d)(3)(B).
Status Report § I, ECF No. 20 in 4:16-cv-119.
Ola

Alston

construed
answer,

so

Barge-Ra’Oof,

as

an

they

answer,
“waive[d]

whose
none

motion
of

all

to

these

objections

might have made to the taking.

Order for

Other than Mae

dismiss

Defendants
and

has

been

filed

defenses”

an

they

Fed. R. Civ. P. 71.1(e)(3).

Barge-Ra’Oof attended the hearing on the pending motions, along
with her husband and another relative, Ms. Hall.

They do not

oppose the easement, but they want to make sure that they are
treated fairly and receive just compensation.

None of the other

Defendants attended the hearing.
The Court ordered Sabal Trail to file a status report as to
the remaining three Defendants: April Cannon a/k/a April Mobley,
Tenesha Huckaby, and Barbara Alston Sherman.

In its status

report, Sabal Trail reported that it had researched these three

9

Defendants’ addresses and attempted to serve them, but the three
Defendants could not be served at the addresses Sabal Trail had
for them.

See generally Status Report (May 25, 2016), ECF No.

22 in 4:16-cv-119.

Sabal Trail filed a Certificate of Diligent

Search certifying that it had used diligent efforts to find
these three Defendants’ addresses but was still unable to locate
them.

See generally Certificate of Diligent Search, ECF No. 23-

1 in 4:16-cv-119.
Sabal Trail asks the Court to find that April Cannon a/k/a
April Mobley, Tenesha Huckaby, and Barbara Alston Sherman have
been

properly

served

under

Rule

71.1(d)(3)(B)

because

Sabal

Trail published a notice about this action in The Dawson News
and has now certified that it was unable to find these three
Defendants’ addresses.

Technically, Rule 71.1(d)(3)(B) requires

a certificate of diligent search before service by publication
is

done,

presumably

to

prevent

a

plaintiff

from

attempting

service by publication without performing the required diligent
search.

However, given that the three statutory requirements

for condemnation are met, that the published notice did list all
of the Defendants in this action, and that there is nothing in
the

present

record

to

refute

Sabal

Trail’s

certification

of

diligent search, the Court finds that this issue should not
preclude summary judgment or the preliminary injunction.

The

Court leaves for another day the issue of whether Sabal Trail

10

must do more to ensure that Defendants have actual notice of
this action before compensation proceedings.
XIV. 4:16-cv-121 (Lu-Al Properties, Inc., et al.)3
Lu-Al Properties Inc.’s attorney accepted service of the
Complaint, Notice of Condemnation, and pending motions on April
4, 2016.

Acknowledgement & Acceptance of Serv. – Lu-Al Props.,

ECF No. 12-1 in 4:16-cv-121.
indicating

that

it

had

Lu-Al Properties timely answered,

reached

an

agreement

regarding

the

easement but that the easement had to be approved by Georgia
Land Trust, Inc.
Properties’

At the hearing on the pending motions, Lu-Al

attorney

represented

that

Lu-Al

had

reached

an

agreement in principle on the easement and that that this case
would be dismissed soon.

To date, no stipulation of dismissal

or notice of settlement has been filed.
South

Georgia

Farm

Credit

ACA

was

served

with

the

Complaint, Notice of Condemnation, and pending motions on March
28, 2016.

Decl. of Proof of Serv. – S. Ga. Farm Credit, ECF

Nos. 11-5 & 11-6 in 4:16-cv-121.

South Georgia Farm Credit

timely answered and does not oppose the easement.
Lucius C. Smith, II and Terrell County were served with the
Complaint, Notice of Condemnation, and pending motions on March
31, 2016.

Decl. of Proof of Serv. – L. Smith, ECF Nos. 11-1 &

3

Sabal Trail initially named South Georgia Natural Gas Company as a
Defendant but filed a motion to dismiss the company without prejudice
as unnecessarily joined. The Court granted the motion.

11

11-2 in 4:16-cv-121; Decl. of Proof of Serv. – Terrell Cty., ECF
Nos. 11-3 & 11-4 in 4:16-cv-121.

Georgia Land Trust, Inc. was

served with the Complaint, Notice of Condemnation, and pending
motions on March 29, 2016.

Decl. of Proof of Serv. – Ga. Land

Trust, ECF Nos. 13-1 & 13-2 in 4:16-cv-121.

Neither Smith,

Terrell County, nor Georgia Land Trust filed an answer, so they
“waive[d] all objections and defenses” they might have made to
the taking.
XV.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 71.1(e)(3).

4:16-cv-122 (Thomas E. Callis, et al.)
Thomas E. Callis was served with the Complaint, Notice of

Condemnation, and pending motions on March 23 and 26, 2016.
Decl. of Proof of Serv. – T. Callis, ECF Nos. 11-1 & 11-2 in
4:16-cv-122.

William

G.

Callis,

III

was

served

with

the

Complaint, Notice of Condemnation, and pending motions on March
23 and 26, 2016.

Decl. of Proof of Serv. – W. Callis, ECF Nos.

11-3 & 11-4 in 4:16-cv-122.
The

Georgia

Department

of

Revenue

was

served

with

the

Complaint, Notice of Condemnation, and pending motions on March
23, 2016 and March 28, 2016.

Decl. of Proof of Serv. – Ga. DOR,

ECF Nos. 11-5 & 11-6 in 4:16-cv-122.

Terrell County was served

with the Complaint, Notice of Condemnation, and pending motions
on March 31, 2016.

Decl. of Proof of Serv. – Terrell Cty., ECF

Nos. 11-7 & 11-8 in 4:16-cv-122.

12

None of these Defendants filed an answer, so they “waive[d]
all objections and defenses” they might have made to the taking.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 71.1(e)(3).
XVI. 4:16-cv-123 (Mark S. Wiederkehr, et al.)4
Mark and Judith Wiederkehr were served with the Complaint,
Notice of Condemnation, and pending motions on March 24 and 26,
2016

and

March

26,

2016.

Decl.

of

Proof

of

Serv.

–

M.

Wiederkehr, ECF Nos. 13-1 & 13-2 in 4:16-cv-123; Decl. of Proof
of Serv. – J. Wiederkehr, ECF Nos. 13-3 & 13-4 in 4:16-cv-123.
The

Wiederkehrs

timely

answered.

Mr.

Wiederkehr

and

his

with

the

attorney attended the hearing on the pending motions.
Southwest

Georgia

Farm

Credit

ACA

was

served

Complaint, Notice of Condemnation, and pending motions on March
28, 2016.

Decl. of Proof of Serv. – Sw. Ga. Farm Credit, ECF

Nos.

&

13-5

13-6

in

4:16-cv-123.

The

remaining

Defendants

(James E. Sapp, Jr., as Co-Executor of the Estate of William M.
VanCise, Edith VanCise Knowles, as Co-Executor of the Estate of
William M. VanCise, William M. VanCise, Jr., Margaret VanCise
Shoemaker, Janet VanCise Rainey, and Ruth VanCise Sapp) were
served by publication on April 7, 2016, which was the date of
the third and final publication of the notice regarding this
action

in

The

Dawson

News.

Copy

4

of

Published

Notice

of

Sabal Trail initially named SunTrust Bank as a Defendant but filed a
motion to dismiss the bank without prejudice as unnecessarily joined.
The Court granted the motion.

13

Condemnation,

ECF

No.

21-1

in

4:16-cv-123.

None

of

the

Defendants other than the Widerkehrs filed an answer, so they
“waive[d] all objections and defenses” they might have made to
the taking.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 71.1(e)(3).

4:16-cv-124 (Paul H. Stapleton, et al.)5

XVII.
Paul

Stapleton’s

attorney

accepted

service

of

the

Complaint, Notice of Condemnation, and pending motions on April
1, 2016.

Acknowledgement & Acceptance of Serv. – P. Stapleton,

ECF No. 15-1 in 4:16-cv-124.

Stapleton timely answered; his

attorney appeared at the hearing on the pending motions.
Larry
served

with

Eugene
the

Brightwell’s
Complaint,

widow,

Notice

pending motions on March 28, 2016.
Brightwell,

ECF

Nos.

16-1

&

16-2

Belle

of

Brightwell,

Condemnation,

and

was
the

Decl. of Proof of Serv. –
in

4:16-cv-124.

Mrs.

Brightwell did not file an answer, but she did appear at the
hearing on the pending motions and indicated that her husband
had sold the property before he passed away.

Sabal Trail stated

that Mr. Brightwell had retained an access easement across the
property and represented that it would work with Mrs. Brightwell
to determine whether the access easement would be impacted by
the pipeline easement.

5

Sabal Trail initially named Regions Bank as a Defendant but filed a
motion to dismiss the bank without prejudice as unnecessarily joined.
The Court granted the motion.

14

Bank of Terrell was served with the Complaint, Notice of
Condemnation, and pending motions on March 30, 2016.

Decl. of

Proof of Serv. – Bank of Terrell, ECF Nos. 14-1 & 14-2 in 4:16cv-124.

Bank of Terrell did not file an answer, so it “waive[d]

all objections and defenses” they might have made to the taking.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 71.1(e)(3).
XVIII.
4:16-cv-125 (Estate of Willie and Josephine Walker, et
al.)
There are thirty-one Defendants in this action.

As the

Court previously recounted, seventeen Defendants were served in
accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 71.1(d)(3)(A),
and four of the Defendants were properly served by publication
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 71.1(d)(3)(B).
Status Report § I, ECF No. 26 in 4:16-cv-125.

Order for

None of these

Defendants filed an answer, so they “waive[d] all objections and
defenses” they might have made to the taking.
71.1(e)(3).

Fed. R. Civ. P.

None of these Defendants appeared at the hearing on

the pending motions.
The Court ordered Sabal Trail to file a status report as to
the remaining ten Defendants: Angel Silas, Bryan Battle, Candace
Flannigan,

Iris

Davis,

Kelvin

Battle,

Leon

Walker,

Michael

Silas, Sebrina Davis, Senoia Davis, Sherrice Flannigan, Tanesha
Battle.

In its status report, Sabal Trail reported that it had

researched

these

ten

Defendants’

15

addresses

and

attempted

to

serve them, but the ten Defendants could not be served at the
addresses Sabal Trail had for them.

See generally Status Report

(May 25, 2016), ECF No. 28 in 4:16-cv-125.
Certificate

of

Diligent

Search

Sabal Trail filed a

certifying

that

it

had

used

diligent efforts to find these three Defendants’ addresses but
was still unable to locate them.

See generally Certificate of

Diligent Search, ECF No. 29-1 in 4:16-cv-125.
Sabal

Trail

asks

the

Court

to

find

that

these

ten

Defendants have been properly served under Rule 71.1(d)(3)(B)
because Sabal Trail published a notice about this action in The
Stewart Webster Patriot Citizen and has now certified that it
was

unable

Technically,
diligent

to

find

Rule

search

these

ten

71.1(d)(3)(B)
before

Defendants’

requires

service

by

a

addresses.

certificate

publication

is

of

done,

presumably to prevent a plaintiff from attempting service by
publication
However,

without

given

that

performing
the

the

three

required

statutory

diligent

search.

requirements

for

condemnation are met, that the published notice did list all of
the Defendants in this action, and that there is nothing in the
present record to refute Sabal Trail’s certification of diligent
search, the Court finds that this issue should not preclude
summary

judgment

or

the

preliminary

injunction.

The

Court

leaves for another day the issue of whether Sabal Trail must do

16

more to ensure that Defendants have actual notice of this action
before compensation proceedings.
XIX. 4:16-cv-126 (Brian Alan O’Brien, et al.)
Brian Alan O’Brien was served with the Complaint, Notice of
Condemnation, and pending motions on March 24 and 29, 2016.
Decl. of Proof of Serv. – B. O’Brien, ECF Nos. 11-1 & 11-2 in
4:16-cv-126.

John H. O’Brien was served with the Complaint,

Notice of Condemnation, and pending motions on March 26, 2016.
Decl. of Proof of Serv. – J. O’Brien, ECF Nos. 11-3 & 11-4 in
4:16-cv-126.

Both O’Briens timely answered, and their attorney

appeared at the hearing on the pending motions.

17

APPENDIX B: Property Descriptions, Values, and Offers
I.

4:16-cv-97 (Sandra Yarbrough Jones)
In this case, Sabal Trail seeks permanent and temporary

easements over two tracts of land in Colquitt County, which are
described in detail in the Complaint.
4:16-cv-97.

Compl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 1 in

Sabal Trail submitted maps of the permanent and

temporary easements as attachments to the Complaint.
1-A & 1-B, ECF Nos. 1-1 & 1-2 in 4:16-cv-97.

Id. Exs.

After Jones

objected to the adequacy of the description provided in the
Complaint and its exhibits, Sabal Trail engaged a land surveyor
to provide “plats containing metes and bounds descriptions of
the precise locations of the proposed Sabal Trail easements.”
Brock Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 82-2 in 4:16-cv-97; accord id. Ex. 1,
Jones Easement Plats, ECF No. 82-3 at 3-10 in 4:16-cv-97.

In

addition, survey crews staked the easements on the property.
Brock Decl. ¶ 3.

Jones did not object to the adequacy of the

land surveyor’s plats, and the easements granted to Sabal Trail
shall conform to those plats.
Sabal
interests.

Trail

offered

Norman

Decl.

Jones
Ex.

$85,000.00

C,

Letter

for

from

the

Tony

easement
Dieste

to

Sandra Jones 2 (Mar. 1, 2016) ECF No. 4-3 at 17 in 4:16-cv-97.
Sabal Trail represents that the appraised value of the easement
interests is $11,791.00.

Id.

Jones disputes the accuracy of

the appraisal, contending that it does not take into account the

1

diminution of value to her entire property or the value of her
prize camellia bushes that would be impacted by the easements,
but she did not point to any evidence on this point.
II.

4:16-cv-99 (The Graham Company, et al.)
In this case, Sabal Trail seeks permanent and temporary

easements over three tracts of land in Dougherty County, which
are described in detail in the Complaint.
in 4:16-cv-99.

Compl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 1

Sabal Trail submitted maps of the permanent and

temporary easements as attachments to the Complaint.
1-A & 1-B, ECF Nos. 1-2 & 1-3 in 4:16-cv-99.

Id. Exs.

After Graham

Company objected to the adequacy of the description provided in
the

Complaint

surveyor

to

descriptions

and

its

provide
of

the

Trail easements.”

exhibits,
“plats

precise

Sabal

Trail

containing
locations

engaged

metes

of

the

a

and

land

bounds

proposed

Sabal

Brock Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 82-2 in 4:16-cv-97;

accord id. Ex. 1, Graham Co. Easement Plats, ECF No. 82-3 at 1229

in

4:16-cv-97.

In

easements on the property.

addition,

survey

Brock Decl. ¶ 3.

crews

staked

the

Graham Company did

not object to the adequacy of the land surveyor’s plats, and the
easements granted to Sabal Trail shall conform to those plats.
Sabal
easement

Trail

offered

interests.

Graham

Norman

Company

Decl.

Ex.

$101,300.00
C,

Letter

for

from

the

James

Jernigan to The Graham Co. 2 (Mar. 1, 2016) ECF No. 7-3 at 28 in
4:16-cv-99.

Sabal Trail represents that the appraised value of

2

the

easement

interests

is

$67,600.00.

Id.

Graham

Company

disputes the accuracy of the appraisal, contending that it does
not take into account the diminution of value to its entire
property, but Graham Company did not point to any evidence on
this point.
III. 4:16-cv-102 (W. Lynn Lasseter)
In this case, Sabal Trail seeks permanent and temporary
easements over one tract of land in Colquitt County, which is
described in detail in the Complaint.
4:16-cv-102.

Compl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 1 in

Sabal Trail submitted a map of the permanent and

temporary easements as an attachment to the Complaint.
1, ECF No. 1-2 in 4:16-cv-102.

Id. Ex.

After Lasseter objected to the

adequacy of the description provided in the Complaint, Sabal
Trail engaged a land surveyor to provide “plats containing metes
and bounds descriptions of the precise locations of the proposed
Sabal Trail easements.”

Brock Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 82-2 in 4:16-

cv-97; accord id. Ex. 1, Lasseter Easement Plats, ECF No. 82-3
at 40-44 in 4:16-cv-97.
easements on the property.

In addition, survey crews staked the
Brock Decl. ¶ 3.

Lasseter did not

object to the adequacy of the land surveyor’s plats, and the
easements granted to Sabal Trail shall conform to those plats.
Sabal Trail offered Lasseter $145,303.00 for the easement
interests.

Norman Decl. Ex. C, Letter from Tony Dieste to W.

Lynn Lasseter 2 (Mar. 1, 2016) ECF No. 4-3 at 13 in 4:16-cv-102.

3

Sabal Trail represents that the appraised value of the easement
interests is $17,791.00.
IV.

Id.

4:16-cv-103 (Timbervest Partners Stewart II, LLC, et al.)
In this case, Sabal Trail seeks permanent and temporary

easements over two tracts of land in Stewart County, which are
described in detail in the Complaint.
4:16-cv-103.
the

Sabal Trail submitted a land surveyor’s plats of

permanent

Complaint.
103.

Compl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 1 in

and

temporary

easements

as

attachments

to

the

Id. Exs. 1-A & 1-B, ECF Nos. 1-2 & 1-3 in 4:16-cv-

Timbervest Partners Stewart II, LLC did not object to the

adequacy of the land surveyor’s plats, and the easements granted
to Sabal Trail shall conform to those plats.
Sabal

Trail

offered

Timbervest

Partners

$125,000.00 for the easement interests.

Stewart

II,

LLC

Norman Decl. Ex. C,

Letter from James Jernigan to Timbervest Partners Stewart II,
LLC 2 (Mar. 1, 2016) ECF No. 7-3 at 22 in 4:16-cv-103.
Trail

represents

that

interests is $25,394.00.
V.

the

appraised

value

of

the

Sabal

easement

Id.

4:16-cv-104 (Kenneth Gregory Isaacs)
In this case, Sabal Trail seeks permanent and temporary

easements over one tract of land in Colquitt County, which is
described in detail in the Complaint.
4:16-cv-104.

Compl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 1 in

Sabal Trail submitted a map of the permanent and

temporary easements as an attachment to the Complaint.

4

Id. Ex.

1, ECF No. 1-2 in 4:16-cv-104.

After Isaacs objected to the

adequacy of the description provided in the Complaint and its
exhibits, Sabal Trail engaged a land surveyor to provide “plats
containing

metes

and

bounds

descriptions

of

locations of the proposed Sabal Trail easements.”

the

precise

Brock Decl. ¶

4, ECF No. 82-2 in 4:16-cv-97; accord id. Ex. 1, Isaacs Easement
Plats, ECF No. 82-3 at 46-48 in 4:16-cv-97.

In addition, survey

crews staked the easements on the property.

Brock Decl. ¶ 3.

Isaacs did not object to the adequacy of the land surveyor’s
plats, and the easements granted to Sabal Trail shall conform to
those plats.
Sabal

Trail

interests.

offered

Isaacs

$43,791.95

for

the

easement

Norman Decl. Ex. C, Letter from Tony Dieste to K.

Gregory Isaacs 2 (Mar. 1, 2016) ECF No. 4-3 at 13 in 4:16-cv104.

Sabal Trail represents that the appraised value of the

easement interests is $20,817.00.

Id.

Isaacs disputes the

accuracy of the appraisal, contending that it does not take into
account the diminution of value to his entire property, but he
did not point to any evidence on this point.
VI.

4:16-cv-105 (Frank H. Wingate, et al.)
In this case, Sabal Trail seeks permanent and temporary

easements over one tract of land in Stewart County, which is
described in detail in the Complaint.
4:16-cv-105.

Compl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 1 in

Sabal Trail submitted a map of the permanent and

5

temporary easements as an attachment to the Complaint.
1,

ECF

No.

1-2

in

4:16-cv-105.

Sabal

Trail

also

Id. Ex.
submitted

copies of the FERC-approved alignment sheets depicting the route
of the easement.
id.

Exs.

A

&

Norman Decl. ¶ 12, ECF No. 4-3 in 4:16-cv-105;
B,

ECF

No.

4-3

at

8

&

10

in

4:16-cv-105.

Defendants did not object to the adequacy of this description,
and the easements granted to Sabal Trail shall conform to the
map and the alignment sheets.
Sabal

Trail

interests.

offered

Wingate

$32,500.00

for

the

easement

Norman Decl. Ex. C, Letter from James Jernigan to

Frank Wingate 2 (Mar. 1, 2016) ECF No. 4-3 at 13 in 4:16-cv-105.
Sabal Trail represents that the appraised value of the easement
interests is $8,974.00.

Id.

VII. 4:16-cv-107 (G.B.A. Associates, LLC)
In this case, Sabal Trail seeks permanent and temporary
easements over one tract of land in Colquitt County, which is
described in detail in the Complaint.
4:16-cv-107.

Compl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 1 in

Sabal Trail submitted a map of the permanent and

temporary easements as an attachment to the Complaint.
1, ECF No. 1-2 in 4:16-cv-107.

Id. Ex.

After G.B.A. Associates objected

to the adequacy of the description provided in the Complaint and
its exhibits, Sabal Trail engaged a land surveyor to provide
“plats containing metes and bounds descriptions of the precise
locations of the proposed Sabal Trail easements.”

6

Brock Decl. ¶

4,

ECF

No.

82-2

in

4:16-cv-97;

accord

id.

Ex.

1,

G.B.A.

Associates Easement Plats, ECF No. 82-4 at 19-22 in 4:16-cv-97.
In addition, survey crews staked the easements on the property.
Brock

Decl.

¶

3.

G.B.A.

Associates

did

not

object

to

the

adequacy of the land surveyor’s plats, and the easements granted
to Sabal Trail shall conform to those plats.
Sabal Trail offered G.B.A. Associates $406,208.05 for the
easement interests.

Norman Decl. Ex. C, Letter from Tony Dieste

to G.B.A. Associates 2 (Mar. 1, 2016) ECF No. 4-3 at 15 in 4:16cv-107.

Sabal Trail represents that the appraised value of the

easement

interests

is

$203,139.00.

Id.

G.B.A.

Associates

disputes the accuracy of the appraisal, contending that it does
not take into account the diminution of value to its entire
property, but G.B.A. Associates did not point to any evidence on
this point.
VIII.

4:16-cv-108 (Estate of Elijah Moore, et al.)
In this case, Sabal Trail seeks permanent and temporary

easements over one tract of land in Mitchell County, which is
described in detail in the Complaint.
4:16-cv-108.

Compl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 1 in

Sabal Trail submitted a land surveyor’s plat of

the permanent and temporary easements as an attachment to the
Complaint.
also

Id. Ex. 1, ECF No. 1-2 in 4:16-cv-108.

submitted

copies

of

the

FERC-approved

depicting the route of the easement.

7

Sabal Trail

alignment

sheets

Norman Decl. ¶ 12, ECF No.

4-3 in 4:16-cv-108; id. Exs. A & B, ECF No. 4-3 at 8-9 & 11-12
in 4:16-cv-108.

Defendants did not object to the adequacy of

this description, and the easements granted to Sabal Trail shall
conform to the map and the alignment sheets.
Sabal Trail offered Defendants $15,000.00 for the easement
interests.

Norman

Decl.

Ex.

C,

Letter

from

Tony

Dieste

to

Alonzo Hill, Jr. 2 (Mar. 1, 2016) ECF No. 4-3 at 15 in 4:16-cv108.

Sabal Trail represents that the appraised value of the

easement interests is $1,800.00.
IX.

Id.

4:16-cv-109 (Earle P. Spurlock, et al.)
In this case, Sabal Trail seeks permanent and temporary

easements over one tract of land in Dougherty County, which is
described in detail in the Complaint.
4:16-cv-109.

Compl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 1 in

Sabal Trail submitted a map of the permanent and

temporary easements as an attachment to the Complaint.
1, ECF No. 1-2 in 4:16-cv-109.

Id. Ex.

After Earle Spurlock and John

Phillips objected to the adequacy of the description provided in
the

Complaint

surveyor

to

descriptions

and

its

provide
of

Trail easements.”

the

exhibits,
“plats

precise

Sabal

Trail

containing
locations

of

engaged

metes
the

a

and

proposed

land

bounds
Sabal

Brock Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 82-2 in 4:16-cv-97;

accord id. Ex. 1, Spurlock & Phillips Easement Plats, ECF No.
82-4 at 24-30 in 4:16-cv-97.

In addition, survey crews staked

the easements on the property.

Brock Decl. ¶ 3.

8

Spurlock and

Phillips did not object to the adequacy of the land surveyor’s
plats, and the easements granted to Sabal Trail shall conform to
those plats.
Sabal Trail offered Spurlock and Phillips $48,000.00 for
the easement interests.

Norman Decl. Ex. C, Letter from James

Jernigan to John T. Phillips, III 2 (Mar. 1, 2016) ECF No. 4-3
at 13 in 4:16-cv-109.

Sabal Trail represents that the appraised

value of the easement interests is $25,109.00.

Id.

Spurlock

and Phillips dispute the accuracy of the appraisal, contending
that it does not take into account the diminution of value to
their entire property, but they did not point to any evidence on
this point.
X.

4:16-cv-110 (O.J. Stapleton, Jr., et al.)
In this case, Sabal Trail seeks permanent and temporary

easements over one tract of land in Terrell County and three
tracts of land in Webster County, which are described in detail
in the Complaint.

Compl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 1 in 4:16-cv-110.

Sabal

Trail submitted maps of the permanent and temporary easements as
attachments to the Complaint.
to 1-5 in 4:16-cv-110.

Id. Exs. 1-A to 1-D, ECF Nos. 1-2

After O.J. Stapleton, Jr. objected to

the adequacy of the description provided in the Complaint and
its exhibits, Sabal Trail engaged a land surveyor to provide
“plats containing metes and bounds descriptions of the precise
locations of the proposed Sabal Trail easements.”

9

Brock Decl. ¶

4, ECF No. 82-2 in 4:16-cv-97; accord id. Ex. 1, O.J. Stapleton
Easement

Plats,

ECF

No.

82-4

at

32-58

in

4:16-cv-97.

In

addition, survey crews staked the easements on the property.
Brock Decl. ¶ 3.

Stapleton did not object to the adequacy of

the land surveyor’s plats, and the easements granted to Sabal
Trail shall conform to those plats.
Sabal Trail offered Stapleton $248,000.00 for the easement
interests.

Norman Decl. Ex. C, Letter from James Jernigan to

O.J. Stapleton, Jr. 2 (Mar. 1, 2016) ECF No. 6-3 at 33 in 4:16cv-110.

Sabal Trail represents that the appraised value of the

easement interests is $22,652.00.
XI.

Id.

4:16-cv-113 (James Edwin Bell, II, et al.)
In this case, Sabal Trail seeks permanent and temporary

easements over one tract of land in Mitchell County, which is
described in detail in the Complaint.
4:16-cv-113.

Compl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 1 in

Sabal Trail submitted a map of the permanent and

temporary easements as an attachment to the Complaint.
1, ECF No. 1-2 in 4:16-cv-113.

Id. Ex.

After James Edwin Bell, II and

Robert Adams Bell objected to the adequacy of the description
provided in the Complaint and its exhibits, Sabal Trail engaged
a land surveyor to provide “plats containing metes and bounds
descriptions

of

Trail easements.”

the

precise

locations

of

the

proposed

Sabal

Brock Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 82-2 in 4:16-cv-97;

accord id. Ex. 1, Bell Easement Plats, ECF No. 82-5 at 2-6 in

10

4:16-cv-97.

In addition, survey crews staked the easements on

the property.

Brock Decl. ¶ 3.

The Bells did not object to the

adequacy of the land surveyor’s plats, and the easements granted
to Sabal Trail shall conform to those plats.
Sabal Trail offered the Bells $13,000.00 for the easement
interests.

Norman Decl. Ex. C, Letter from Tony Dieste to James

& Robert Bell 2 (Mar. 1, 2016) ECF No. 4-3 at 13 in 4:16-cv-113.
Sabal Trail represents that the appraised value of the easement
interests is $6,400.00.

Id.

The Bells dispute the accuracy of

the appraisal, contending that it does not take into account the
diminution of value to their entire property, but they did not
point to any evidence on this point.
XII. 4:16-cv-114 (Albany Farm, LLC, et al.)
In this case, Sabal Trail seeks permanent and temporary
easements over three tracts of land in Dougherty County, which
are described in detail in the Complaint.
in 4:16-cv-114.

Compl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 1

Sabal Trail submitted a map of the permanent

and temporary easements as an attachment to the Complaint.
Ex. 1, ECF No. 1-2 in 4:16-cv-114.

Id.

After Albany Farm objected

to the adequacy of the description provided in the Complaint and
its exhibits, Sabal Trail engaged a land surveyor to provide
“plats containing metes and bounds descriptions of the precise
locations of the proposed Sabal Trail easements.”

Brock Decl.

¶ 4, ECF No. 82-2 in 4:16-cv-97; accord id. Ex. 1, Albany Farm

11

Easement

Plats,

ECF

No.

82-5

at

8-17

in

4:16-cv-97.

In

addition, survey crews staked the easements on the property.
Brock Decl. ¶ 3.

Albany Farm did not object to the adequacy of

the land surveyor’s plats, and the easements granted to Sabal
Trail shall conform to those plats.
Sabal Trail offered Albany Farm $60,300.00 for the easement
interests.

Norman Decl. Ex. C, Letter from James Jernigan to

Albany Farm 2 (Mar. 1, 2016) ECF No. 4-3 at 18 in 4:16-cv-114.
Sabal Trail represents that the appraised value of the easement
interests is $28,345.00.
XIII.

Id.

4:16-cv-119 (Estate of Richard and Bobbie Alston, et
al.)
In this case, Sabal Trail seeks permanent and temporary

easements over one tract of land in Terrell County, which is
described in detail in the Complaint.
4:16-cv-119.

Compl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 1 in

Sabal Trail submitted a map of the permanent and

temporary easements as an attachment to the Complaint.
1,

ECF

No.

1-2

in

4:16-cv-119.

Sabal

Trail

also

Id. Ex.
submitted

copies of the FERC-approved alignment sheets depicting the route
of the easement.
id.

Exs.

A

&

Norman Decl. ¶ 12, ECF No. 4-3 in 4:16-cv-119;
B,

ECF

No.

4-3

at

9

&

11

in

4:16-cv-119.

Defendants did not object to the adequacy of this description,
and the easements granted to Sabal Trail shall conform to the
map and the alignment sheets.

12

Sabal Trail offered Defendants $9,400.00 for the easement
interests.

Norman Decl. Ex. C, Letter from James Jernigan to

Landowners 2 (Mar. 1, 2016) ECF No. 4-3 at 14 in 4:16-cv-119.
Sabal Trail represents that the appraised value of the easement
interests is $6,740.00.

Id.

XIV. 4:16-cv-121 (Lu-Al Properties, Inc., et al.)
In this case, Sabal Trail seeks permanent and temporary
easements over one tract of land in Terrell County, which is
described in detail in the Complaint.
4:16-cv-121.

Compl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 1 in

Sabal Trail submitted a map of the permanent and

temporary easements as an attachment to the Complaint.
1,

ECF

No.

1-2

in

4:16-cv-121.

Sabal

Trail

also

Id. Ex.
submitted

copies of the FERC-approved alignment sheets depicting the route
of the easement.

Norman Decl. ¶ 12, ECF No. 4-3 in 4:16-cv-121;

id. Exs. A & B, ECF No. 4-3 at 8-9 & 11-12 in 4:16-cv-121.
Defendants did not object to the adequacy of this description,
and the easements granted to Sabal Trail shall conform to the
map and the alignment sheets.
Sabal Trail offered Lu-Al Properties, Inc. $45,000.00 for
the easement interests.

Norman Decl. Ex. C, Letter from James

Jernigan to Luke Smith 2 (Mar. 1, 2016) ECF No. 4-3 at 15 in
4:16-cv-121.

Sabal Trail represents that the appraised value of

the easement interests is $5,700.00.

13

Id.

XV.

4:16-cv-122 (Thomas E. Callis, et al.)
In this case, Sabal Trail seeks permanent and temporary

easements over one tract of land in Terrell County, which is
described in detail in the Complaint.
4:16-cv-122.

Compl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 1 in

Sabal Trail submitted a map of the permanent and

temporary easements as an attachment to the Complaint.
1,

ECF

No.

1-2

in

4:16-cv-122.

Sabal

Trail

also

Id. Ex.
submitted

copies of the FERC-approved alignment sheets depicting the route
of the easement.

Norman Decl. ¶ 12, ECF No. 4-3 in 4:16-cv-122;

id. Exs. A & B, ECF No. 4-3 at 8-9 & 11-13 in 4:16-cv-122.
Defendants did not object to the adequacy of this description,
and the easements granted to Sabal Trail shall conform to the
map and the alignment sheets.
Sabal Trail offered Thomas and William Callis $67,200.00
for the easement interests.

Norman Decl. Ex. C, Letter from

James Jernigan to Thomas & William Callis 2 (Mar. 1, 2016) ECF
No. 4-3 at 16 in 4:16-cv-122.

Sabal Trail represents that the

appraised value of the easement interests is $14,564.00.

Id.

XVI. 4:16-cv-123 (Mark S. Wiederkehr, et al.)
In this case, Sabal Trail seeks permanent and temporary
easements over one tract of land in Terrell County, which is
described in detail in the Complaint.
4:16-cv-123.

Compl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 1 in

Sabal Trail submitted a map of the permanent and

temporary easements as an attachment to the Complaint.

14

Id. Ex.

1,

ECF

No.

1-2

in

4:16-cv-123.

Sabal

Trail

also

submitted

copies of the FERC-approved alignment sheets depicting the route
of the easement.

Norman Decl. ¶ 12, ECF No. 4-3 in 4:16-cv-123;

id. Exs. A & B, ECF No. 4-3 at 8 & 10 in 4:16-cv-123.

Mark and

Judith Wiederkehr objected to the adequacy of the description
provided

in

the

Complaint

concerns

associated

with

and

its

exhibits.

pesticides

that

had

Due

to

safety

recently

been

sprayed on the Wiederkehrs’ pecan orchard, Sabal Trail’s land
surveyor could not enter the property to conduct a more detailed
survey.

At

the

hearing,

however,

the

Wiederkehrs’

attorney

acknowledged that the easement path had been staked and that Mr.
Wiederkehr had worked with Sabal Trail on the location of the
easement.

The easements granted to Sabal Trail shall conform to

the map, alignment sheets, and staked easement path.
Sabal
easement

Trail

offered

interests.

the

Norman

Wiederkehrs
Decl.

Ex.

$525,000.00

C,

Letter

for

from

the

James

Jernigan to Mark & Judith Wiederkehr 2 (Mar. 1, 2016) ECF No. 43

at

13

in

4:16-cv-123.

Sabal

Trail

represents

that

appraised value of the easement interests is $37,884.00.
The

Wiederkehrs

dispute

the

accuracy

of

the

the
Id.

appraisal,

contending that it is far below market value for the interests
taken, but they did not point to any evidence on this point.

15

XVII.

4:16-cv-124 (Paul H. Stapleton, et al.)
In this case, Sabal Trail seeks permanent and temporary

easements over two tracts of land in Terrell County and two
tracts of land in Webster County, which are described in detail
in the Complaint.

Compl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 1 in 4:16-cv-124.

Sabal

Trail submitted maps of the permanent and temporary easements as
attachments to the Complaint.
to 1-5 in 4:16-cv-124.

Id. Exs. 1-A to 1-D, ECF Nos. 1-2

After Paul Stapleton objected to the

adequacy of the description provided in the Complaint and its
exhibits, Sabal Trail engaged a land surveyor to provide “plats
containing

metes

and

bounds

descriptions

of

locations of the proposed Sabal Trail easements.”
¶ 4,

ECF

No.

82-2

in

4:16-cv-97;

accord

id.

the

precise

Brock Decl.
Ex.

1,

Paul

Stapleton Easement Plats, ECF No. 82-4 at 34-41 in 4:16-cv-97.
In addition, survey crews staked the easements on the property.
Brock Decl. ¶ 3.

Stapleton did not object to the adequacy of

the land surveyor’s plats, and the easements granted to Sabal
Trail shall conform to those plats.
Sabal Trail offered Stapleton $60,600.00 for the easement
interests.

Norman Decl. Ex. C, Letter from James Jernigan to

Paul Stapleton 2 (Mar. 1, 2016) ECF No. 7-3 at 30 in 4:16-cv124.

Sabal Trail represents that the appraised value of the

easement interests is $4,916.00.

16

Id.

XVIII.
4:16-cv-125 (Estate of Willie and Josephine Walker, et
al.)
In this case, Sabal Trail seeks permanent and temporary
easements over one tract of land in Webster County, which is
described in detail in the Complaint.
4:16-cv-125.

Compl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 1 in

Sabal Trail submitted a map of the permanent and

temporary easements as an attachment to the Complaint.
1,

ECF

No.

1-2

in

4:16-cv-125.

Sabal

Trail

also

Id. Ex.
submitted

copies of the FERC-approved alignment sheets depicting the route
of the easement.
id.

Exs.

A

&

Norman Decl. ¶ 12, ECF No. 4-3 in 4:16-cv-125;
B,

ECF

No.

4-3

at

9

&

11

in

4:16-cv-125.

Defendants did not object to the adequacy of this description,
and the easements granted to Sabal Trail shall conform to the
map and the alignment sheets.
Sabal Trail offered Defendants $ 3,500.00 for the easement
interests.

Norman Decl. Ex. C, Letter from James Jernigan to

Landowners 2 (Mar. 1, 2016) ECF No. 4-3 at 14 in 4:16-cv-125.
Sabal Trail represents that the appraised value of the easement
interests is $363.00.

Id.

XIX. 4:16-cv-126 (Brian Alan O’Brien, et al.)
In this case, Sabal Trail seeks permanent and temporary
easements over one tract of land in Webster County, which is
described in detail in the Complaint.
4:16-cv-126.

Compl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 1 in

Sabal Trail submitted a map of the permanent and

17

temporary easements as an attachment to the Complaint.
1, ECF No. 1-2 in 4:16-cv-126.

Id. Ex.

After Brian O’Brien and John

O’Brien objected to the adequacy of the description provided in
the

Complaint

surveyor

to

descriptions

and

its

provide
of

the

Trail easements.”

exhibits,
“plats

precise

Sabal

Trail

containing
locations

engaged

metes

of

the

a

and

land

bounds

proposed

Sabal

Brock Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 82-2 in 4:16-cv-97;

accord id. Ex. 1, O’Brien Easement Plats, ECF No. 82-5 at 43-49
in 4:16-cv-97.

In addition, survey crews staked the easements

on the property.

Brock Decl. ¶ 3.

The O’Briens did not object

to the adequacy of the land surveyor’s plats, and the easements
granted to Sabal Trail shall conform to those plats.
Sabal
easement

Trail

offered

interests.

the

Norman

O’Briens

Decl.

Ex.

$57,500.00
C,

Letter

for

from

the
James

Jernigan to Brian & John O’Brien 2 (Mar. 1, 2016) ECF No. 4-3 at
15 in 4:16-cv-126.

Sabal Trail represents that the appraised

value of the easement interests is $7,192.00.

18

Id.

APPENDIX C: Security for Preliminary Injunction
Case No. 

Defendants 

Appraised
Value 

Security
Required 

4:16-cv-97 

Sandra Yarbrough Jones 

$11,791.00 

$23,582.00 

4:16-cv-99 

Graham Co., et al. 

$67,600.00 

$135,200.00 

4:16-cv-102 

W. Lynn Lasseter 

$17,791.00 

$35,582.00 

4:16-cv-103 

Timbervest Partners
Stewart II, LLC, et al. 

$25,394.00 

$50,788.00 

4:16-cv-104 

Kenneth Gregory Isaacs 

$20,817.00 

$41,634.00 

4:16-cv-105 

Frank H. Wingate, et al. 

$8,974.00 

$17,948.00 

4:16-cv-107 

G.B.A. Associates, LLC 

$203,139.00 

$406,278.00 

4:16-cv-108 

Estate of Elijah Moore,
et al. 

$1,800.00 

$3,600.00 

4:16-cv-109 

Earle P. Spurlock, et al. 

$25,109.00 

$50,218.00 

4:16-cv-110 

O.J. Stapleton, Jr., et
al. 

$22,652.00 

$45,304.00 

4:16-cv-113 

James E. Bell, II, et al. 

$6,400.00 

$12,800.00 

4:16-cv-114 

Albany Farm, LLC, et al. 

$28,345.00 

$56,690.00 

$6,740.00 

$13,480.00 

$5,700.00 

$11,400.00 

4:16-cv-119 
4:16-cv-121 

Estate of Richard Alston,
et al. 
Lu-Al Properties, Inc.,
et al. 

4:16-cv-122 

Thomas E. Callis, et al. 

$14,564.00 

$29,128.00 

4:16-cv-123 

Mark. S. Wiederkehr, et
al. 

$37,884.00 

$75,768.00 

4:16-cv-124 

Paul H. Stapleton, et al. 

$4,916.00 

$9,832.00 

$363.00 

$726.00 

$7,192.00 

$14,384.00 

4:16-cv-125 
4:16-cv-126 

Estate of Willie Walker,
et al. 
Brian Alan O’Brien, et
al. 

1