United States of America v. Land et al

Filing 97

ORDER granting 85 Motion to Bifurcate Issues and for Entry of a Special Scheduling Order. Signed by Judge Helen G. Berrigan on 07/25/2012. (Reference: All Cases)(kac, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO. 09-3714 c/w 09-3743

0.166 ACRES of LAND, MORE OR LESS
SITUATE in PARISH OF JEFFERSON,
STATE OF LOUISIANA, and SID-MAR’S
RESTAURANT & LOUNGE, INC. et al.

SECTION “C”

ORDER & REASONS1
Before the Court is the United States of America’s Motion to Bifurcate Issues and for
Entry of a Special Scheduling Order. Rec. Doc. 85. Having reviewed the memoranda of counsel,
the record, and the law, the Motion is GRANTED.
I. BACKGROUND
Prior to Hurricane Katrina, Sid-Mar’s operated restaurant on the properties of the instant
condemnation actions. U.S. v. Sid-Mars Restaurant & Lounge, Inc., 644 F.3d 270, 271 (5th Cir.
2011). On February 10, 2006, the State of Louisiana commandeered the lands pursuant to a state
executive order. Id. The state provided this land to the federal government. Id. On June 2, 2006,
Sid Mar’s filed suit in state court seeking just compensation against the state. Id. at 272. On June
3, 2009, the United States filed the instant Complaints in condemnation, which were later
1

Jason A. Danowsky, a second-year student at the University of Texas School of Law,
assisted in the preparation of this Order & Reasons.
1

consolidated. Id. Multiple parties that may have interest in the properties, including Sid-Mar’s,
the Sheriff as ex-officio Tax Collector for Jefferson Parish, the State of Louisiana, and other
unknown owners. Id.
The United States seeks to bifurcate the trial into two parts: the first to determine which
parties have interest in the property, and the second to determine just compensation owed by the
United States to those properties. Rec. Doc. 85 at 1. The State of Louisiana supports this
request. Rec. Doc. 89 at 1. Sid-Mar’s disagrees with both the United States and the State of
Louisiana in several respects, as detailed below. Rec. Docs. 87, 94.
II. LAW AND ANALYSIS
A court may bifurcate a trial “[f]or convenience, to avoid prejudice, or to expedite and
economize” the proceedings. Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 42(b). “[W]hether to bifurcate a trial . . . is always
a question committed to the sound discretion of the trial court, and the court is expected to
exercise its discretion on a case-by-case basis. Laitram Corp. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 791
F.Supp. 113, 114 (E.D. La.1992). “[S]eparate trials should be the exception, not the rule.” Id.
The parties do not dispute that the title issues in this case be resolved prior to trial over
appraisal of the land. Rec. Doc. 85-1 at 1; Rec. Doc. 87 at 1; Rec. Doc. 89 at 1. Further, all
parties agree that this Court is an appropriate forum to resolve both the title issues and the
appraisal issues. Rec. Doc. 85-1 at 1; Rec. Doc. 87 at 2; Rec. Doc. 89 at 2.
The only disagreement in this present Motion is Sid-Mar’s preference that the resolution
of title issues occur in state court. Rec. Doc. 87 at 1. Sid-Mar’s argues that the state court is
“well-qualified” and “perhaps, better situated” than federal court to resolve state issues of
ownership. Rec. Doc. 87 at 1. Sid-Mar’s, however, has not convinced this Court that
convenience, avoidance of prejudice, or judicial economy would be better served by bifurcating
2

this trial between state and federal court. Sid-Mar’s does not argue that this Court is not qualified
to resolve these issues, nor has it affirmatively presented any specific issues of ownership or the
2006 commandeering order that this Court would have difficulty deciding.
This Court has jurisdiction to determine the ownership and title in condemnation cases.
See Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 71.1(h) (“In an action involving eminent domain under federal law, the
court tries all issues, including compensation”); Clark v. White, 185 F.2d 528, 530 (5th Cir.
1951) (“Of the jurisdiction and duty of the district court in distributing the fund in a
condemnation case to find out to whom it justly belongs we have no doubt”). Furthermore, it is
well-settled that federal courts may interpret issues of state law by making an Erie guess and
determining how a state’s highest court “would resolve the issue if presented with the same
case.” Chaney v. Dreyfus Service Corp., 595 F.3d 219, 229 (5th Cir. 2010).
Sid-Mar’s cites Olivier Plantation, LLC v. St. Bernard Parish in support of the
proposition that the “most efficient resolution” to the state title issues would be in state court.
Rec. Doc. 91-2 at 2. In Olivier, a case with largely similar facts, a portion of the litigation had
already been remanded and was proceeding in state court concurrent to district court litigation.
Rec. Doc. 91-3 at 5. Additionally, the parties in Olivier agreed that some of the just
compensation claims were exclusively in the jurisdiction of the state court, rather than
concurrent in both courts. Rec. Doc. 91-3 at 10. The court in Olivier stayed all proceedings
pending the resolution of state court matters in order to ensure consistency in state and federal
judgments. Rec. Doc. 91-3. Unlike Olivier, here, there are no concurrent state court proceedings,
and there is no dispute that this Court has jurisdiction over the matters before it. Olivier does not
provide guidance for this Court in determining whether any issues facing this Court need be
resolved in state court.
3

IV. CONCLUSION
This Court has jurisdiction to resolve issues of title in condemnation hearings, and,
further, has seen no affirmative evidence or authority indicating that the proceedings would be
resolved more efficiently, with less prejudice, or more economically were some of the
proceedings resolved in state court. This Court and all parties do agree, however, that a hearing
to determine ownership among the parties should proceed prior to determining just compensation
for those parties.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Bifurcate Issues and for Entry of a Special
Scheduling Order is GRANTED. (Rec. Doc. 85).

New Orleans, Louisiana, this 25th day of July, 2012.

__________________________________
HELEN G. BERRIGAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4