SABAL TRAIL TRANSMISSION LLC v. REAL ESTATE et al

Filing 37

ORDER re 35 Response to Motion, which the Court construes as an out-of-time motion for reconsideration. The motion is denied. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE CLAY D LAND on 12/16/2016. (CCL)

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

*
*

vs.

*

REAL ESTATE, et al.,

*

Defendants.

*

CASE NO.
4:16-cv-119

O R D E R
Defendant Mae Ola Alston Ra’Oof, who is proceeding pro se,
filed

a

brief

asking

the

Court

“NOT

[to]

GRANT

Sabal

Trail

Transmission, LLC the Right to Condemn farmland belonging to the
Estate of Richard Alston and Bobbie Alston, et al.”
2, ECF No. 35 in 4:16-cv-119.

Def.’s Br.

Ra’oof attached several exhibits

to her brief, including a notice of administrator for the estate
of Rufus Alston.

Though Ra’Oof did not state the basis for her

request or explain the relevance of the exhibits she submitted,
the Court considers her brief to be an out-of-time motion for
reconsideration of the Court’s previous order granting partial
summary

judgment

in

favor

of

Sabal

Trail.

The

motion

for

Trail

has

reconsideration is denied.
The

Court

already

concluded

that

“Sabal

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

Order Granting Mots.

for Partial Summ. J. & Mots. for Prelim. Inj. 15, ECF No. 27 in
4:16-cv-119

(ECF

No.

88

in

4:16-cv-97).

The

Court

also

concluded that “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.”

Id. at 21.

This ruling means that the Court has already granted Sabal Trail
the right to condemn the farmland at issue in this case.

Ra’Oof

did not provide any legal basis for the Court to reconsider its
prior conclusion.
The Court notes that Ra’Oof previously filed a motion to
dismiss

Sabal

Trail’s

action

because

she

and

several

other

Defendants believed that they had reached a deal with Sabal
Trail regarding the easement; those Defendants sought to enforce
the agreement.
cv-119.

See Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 13 in 4:16-

The Court denied the motion to dismiss because “the

proper vehicle for asserting objections and defenses to a taking
is the answer, not a motion to dismiss.”

Order Granting Mots.

for Partial Summ. J. & Mots. for Prelim. Inj. 9.

In addition,

Sabal Trail identified twenty-eight individuals who may have an
interest in the property.

Defendants asserted in their motion

to dismiss that eight individuals agreed to a deal with Sabal
Trail.

And Ra’Oof submitted an exhibit suggesting that five

additional Defendants would agree to a deal.
ECF No. 35-8 in 4:16-cv-119.

Def.’s Br. Ex. B,

But Defendants did not establish

2

that everyone who has an interest in the property agreed to the
deal

before

Defendants

Sabal

have

Trail

not

filed

refuted

this

Sabal

suit,

which

Trail’s

means

assertion

that

that

it

could not acquire the easement by contract.

For all of these

reasons,

its

the

Court

declines

to

reconsider

prior

order

granting partial summary judgment in favor of Sabal Trail.
The next step in this case is determination of the amount
of just compensation.

The case is currently in discovery, which

is

must

when

the

position

on

parties
the

Scheduling/Discovery

amount
Order,

gather
of

evidence
just

ECF

No.

Discovery will close on March 31, 2017.
judgment motions are due by May 15, 2017.

to

support

compensation.
33

in

See

4:16-cv-119.

Id. at 16.
Id.

their

Summary

If there is a

genuine fact dispute on the amount of just compensation, then
the Court will hold proceedings to determine the amount of just
compensation.

Of course, if Defendants can reach a deal with

Sabal Trail to which all of the individuals who hold an interest
in the property agree, then such further proceedings would be
unnecessary.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 16th day of December, 2016.
s/Clay D. Land
CLAY D. LAND
CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

3