United States of America upon the relation and for the use of the Tennessee Valley Authority v. An Easement and Right-of-Way over 0.47 acres of land, more or less, in Oktibbeha County, Mississippi et al

Filing 8

ORDER granting 7 Motion for Entry of Consent Judgment and Order Disbursing Funds. Signed by District Judge Debra M. Brown on 12/5/17. (jla)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI ABERDEEN DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA upon the relation and for the use of the TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY PLAINTIFF V. NO. 1:17-CV-117-DMB-DAS AN EASEMENT AND RIGHT-OF-WAY OVER .47 ACRES OF LAND, MORE OR LESS, IN OKTIBBEHA COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI and J PERRY PROPERTIES, LLC DEFENDANTS ORDER On September 20, 2017, the Tennessee Valley Authority filed a “Motion for Entry of a Consent Judgment and Order Disbursing Funds.” Doc. #7. The motion asks the Court to enter a proposed consent judgment which was e-mailed to the Court. Generally, before entering a consent judgment, also called a consent decree, courts must decide whether it represents a reasonable factual and legal determination based on the facts of record, whether established by evidence, affidavit, or stipulation. Courts must also ascertain that the settlement is fair and that it does not violate the Constitution, statutes, or jurisprudence. In assessing the propriety of giving judicial imprimatur to the consent decree, the court must also consider the nature of the litigation and the purposes to be served by the decree. Jones v. Gusman, 296 F.R.D. 416, 428–29 (E.D. La. 2013) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted) (citing Williams v. City of New Orleans, 729 F.2d 1554, 1559 (5th Cir. 1984) and United States v. City of Miami, 664 F.2d 435, 441 (5th Cir. 1981)). The Court has reviewed the proposed consent judgment, which grants the Tennessee Valley Authority immediate possession of certain property in exchange for a $12,000 payment to J Perry Properties, and believes that the judgment represents a fair and reasonable factual and legal determination based on the facts of record. The Court also concludes that the proposed consent judgment does not violate the Constitution, statutes, or jurisprudence. Finally, the proposed consent judgment is consistent with the nature of this litigation, which is a condemnation action. Accordingly, the motion for entry of a consent judgment [7] is GRANTED. A judgment consistent with the parties’ proposed consent judgment will be entered as an order of the Court. SO ORDERED, this 5th day of December, 2017. /s/Debra M. Brown UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?