COLUMBIA GAS TRANSMISSION, LLC v. 2.510 ACRES OF LAND IN THE BOROUGH OF SWEDESBORO, GLOUCESTER COUNTY, NEW JERSEY et al

Filing 20

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Chief Judge Jerome B. Simandle on 2/6/2015. (tf, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

COLUMBIA GAS TRANSMISSION,
LLC, a limited liability
company of the State of
Delaware,

HONORABLE JEROME B. SIMANDLE

Civil Action
No. 15-212 (JBS/KMW)

Plaintiff,
MEMORANDUM OPINION

v.
2.510 ACRES OF LAND IN THE
BOROUGH OF SWEDESBORO,
GLOUCESTER COUNTY, NEW JERSEY,
GARY STECHER, fee owner, and
THE COUNTY OF GLOUCESTER,
Defendants.
SIMANDLE, Chief Judge:

This action comes before the Court among six condemnation
actions filed by Plaintiff Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC
(hereinafter, “Plaintiff”), seeking to acquire permanent and
temporary construction easements across various landowner
defendants properties, in order to construct a new 9.6 mile
pipeline through the Townships of Logan and Woolwich in
Gloucester County, New Jersey. (See generally Compl.)

In

connection with the Verified Condemnation Complaint filed in
each action, Plaintiff sought injunctive relief under the
eminent domain authority of the Natural Gas Act, 15 U.S.C. §
717f (hereinafter, the “Gas Act”), and Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 65, and specifically requested immediate possession of

the easements, prior to a final determination of the amount of
compensation due to the landowner defendants as condemnees. (See
generally Pl.’s Br. [Docket Item 1-4].)
On January 28, 2015, the Court resolved the question of
immediate possession in five of the six actions, see Columbia
Gas Transmission, LLC v. 1.092 Acres of Land in the Twp. of
Woolwich, Gloucester Cnty., N.J., Nos. 15–208, 15–211, 15–213,
15–216, 15–218, 2015 WL 389402 (D.N.J. Jan. 28, 2015), but
deferred determination of Plaintiff’s entitlement to immediate
possession in this action, as a result of an unavoidable delay
in Plaintiff’s ability to serve the landowner Defendant Gary
Stecher (hereinafter, “Stecher”).
Following service, the Court scheduled a show cause hearing
for February 6, 2015, but cancelled the hearing at the parties’
request, in light of the fact that Defendants “‘do not object to
the relief sought by [Plaintiff] at this time, namely,
possession of the easements condemned,’” and therefore did not
intend to appear at the February 6, 2015 show cause hearing.
[Docket Item 16.]

With the record in this action now closed,

the Court turns to Plaintiff’s motion.

For the reasons that

follow, and those set forth in Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC,
2015 WL 389402, at *3-*5, the Court finds Plaintiff entitled to
immediate possession of the requested easements across Defendant

2 

Stecher’s property, and will grant Plaintiff’s motion. The Court
finds as follows:
1.

The Court’s prior Opinion in the related condemnation

proceedings, see Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC, 2015 WL 389402,
at *1-*2, sets forth the detailed factual history of this
litigation, and will not be reiterated herein.

Rather, for the

purposes of the pending motion, the Court notes that on,
December 18, 2014, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(hereinafter, “FERC”) issued a Certificate authorizing Plaintiff
to construct its proposed pipeline. (See Luis Dec., Ex. A.) In
so approving, FERC specifically found Plaintiff’s proposed
project required for “the public convenience and necessity,” in
light of the fact that it will “provided needed transportation
infrastructure,” and based upon the “minimal adverse impacts on
[Plaintiff’s] existing customers, other pipelines and their
captive customers, [] landowners and surrounding communities.”
(Id.)
2.

In advance of FERC approval, Plaintiff has, since

2012, sought to identify the individual properties impacted by
its proposed construction, and has engaged in ongoing
negotiations in order to purchase the necessary easements.
(Compl. at ¶ 14; see also Luis Dec. at ¶¶ 16-18 (certifying that
Defendant’s property falls within the area of Plaintiff’s
anticipated construction).)

Despite these efforts, Plaintiff
3 

has been unable to reach a negotiated agreement with respect to
Defendant Stecher’s property in Gloucester County, New Jersey.
(Id.)

Nevertheless, Plaintiff insists that it requires

immediate possession of the property, in order to meet the
various environmental and contractual restrictions on its
construction, and therefore seeks to acquire immediate
possession of “a permanent easement and right-of-way, 50 feet in
width,” along with a “temporary workspace.” (Id. at ¶ 5.)
However, as stated above, Defendant Stecher does not oppose
Plaintiff’s request for immediate possession. [Docket Item 15.]
3.

In the related condemnation actions, the Court found,

upon substantively identical submissions, that Plaintiff had
demonstrated an established right to condemn the landowner
defendants’ properties under the Gas Act, 15 U.S.C. § 717f(h),
and that preliminary relief in the form of immediate possession
was appropriate. See Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC, 2015 WL
389402, at *3-*5.

Here, the Court concludes, for the same

reasons, that Plaintiff has demonstrated an entitlement to
exercise eminent domain over the specified portions of Defendant
Stecher’s property under the authority of the Gas Act and the
FERC certificate.

See id. at *4.

Similarly, the Court finds,

for the reasons set forth in Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC,
2015 WL 389402, at *4-*5, that the preliminary injunction
factors all favor immediate possession, particularly given
4 

FERC’s issuance of a certificate of public necessity, the
minimal harm to Defendant given the Court will direct Plaintiff
to deposit funds in the Court’s registry, and in light of
Plaintiff’s assertion that any delay could cost “as much as
$157,000 per occurrence,” and could result in lost revenues in
the amount of $126,000 per day.” (Luis Dec. at ¶¶ 22, 38.)
4.

For all of these reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for

preliminary injunction will be granted. [Docket Item 1.]

An

accompanying Order will be entered, together with an Order for
Condemnation providing for condemnation, posting of payment into
the Registry of Court, and entry onto the premises to perform
construction. No determination is made regarding the amount of
just compensation to which Defendant Stecher is entitled. For
any matter in which the parties do not reach a negotiated
agreement, a scheduling conference under Rule 16, Fed. R. Civ.
P., will be convened in due course, and such matter will be
scheduled, following discovery, for its compensation hearing in
accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 71.1.

February 6, 2015
Date

s/ Jerome B. Simandle
JEROME B. SIMANDLE
Chief U.S. District Judge

5