TEXAS EASTERN TRANSMISSION, LP v. 9.41845 ACRES OF LAND, MORE OR LESS, IN THE CITY OF JERSEY CITY, HUDSON COUNTY, NEW JERSEY et al
Filing
36
OPINION AND ORDER denying deft. Jersey City's 32 Motion for a jury trial; denying deft. View's motion for a jury trial. Signed by Judge Stanley R. Chesler on 8/22/2013. (nr, )
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
TEXAS EASTERN TRANSMISSION, LP,
Plaintiff,
v.
9.41845 ACRES OF LAND, MORE OR
LESS, IN THE CITY OF JERSEY CITY,
HUDSON COUNTY, NEW JERSEY et al.,
Defendants.
TEXAS EASTERN TRANSMISSION, LP,
Plaintiff,
v.
.37 ACRES OF LAND, MORE OR LESS,
IN THE CITY OF JERSEY CITY,
HUDSON COUNTY, NEW JERSEY et al.,
Defendants.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Civil Action No. 12-3499 (SRC)
OPINION & ORDER
Civil Action No. 12-7115 (SRC)
CHESLER, District Judge
This matter comes before the Court on two motions for a jury trial: 1) in Civil Action No.
12-3499, by Defendant the City of Jersey City (“Jersey City”); and 2) in Civil Action No. 127115, by Defendant View LSP, LLC (“View”). This Court held a hearing on both motions on
August 19, 2013. For the reasons set forth below, both motions will be denied.
These cases both arise from condemnation actions between condemnee property owners
and condemnor Plaintiff Texas Eastern Transmission, LP, which sought and obtained easements
by condemnation for construction of a pipeline beneath properties owned by the Defendants. The
key remaining issue in both cases is the amount of just compensation to which the Defendants
are entitled. Both Jersey City and View have moved to have this issue determined by a jury trial.
There are no disputes over the relevant law. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 71.1 states:
(h) Trial of the Issues.
(1) Issues Other Than Compensation; Compensation. In an action involving
eminent domain under federal law, the court tries all issues, including
compensation, except when compensation must be determined:
(A) by any tribunal specially constituted by a federal statute to determine
compensation; or
(B) if there is no such tribunal, by a jury when a party demands one within the
time to answer or within any additional time the court sets, unless the court
appoints a commission.
(2) Appointing a Commission; Commission’s Powers and Report.
(A) Reasons for Appointing. If a party has demanded a jury, the court may
instead appoint a three-person commission to determine compensation because of
the character, location, or quantity of the property to be condemned or for other
just reasons.
Defendants here have both demanded jury trials on the issue of compensation. Rule
71.1(h)(2)(A) gives this Court the discretion, for just reasons, to instead appoint a three-person
commission to determine compensation. See also United States v. Delaware, L. & W. R. Co.,
264 F.2d 112, 115 (3d Cir. 1959) (“the choice is vested in the discretion of the court.”)
The express language of this rule instructs this Court to consider “the character, location,
or quantity of the property to be condemned or for other just reasons” in making this decision.
The location of the properties at issue does not appear to be a relevant factor in this decision.
The quantity of the properties does, on the other hand, appear to be important. At the hearing,
2
counsel for Plaintiff stated that there were 20 parcels belonging to Jersey City at issue; the
Complaint, however, lists 25 properties owned by Jersey City. Counsel for Plaintiff also stated
that, in Civil Action No. 12-3680, a similar condemnation action against properties owned by
Consolidated Rail Corporation, there may be a need for a determination of just compensation
with regard to approximately 20 parcels.1 In Civil Action No. 12-7115, two parcels are at issue.
This Court thus finds that compensation related to the Texas Eastern pipeline in New Jersey will
need to be determined for at least 27 parcels, and possibly as many as 48 parcels. Given these
large numbers of parcels, a commission provides greater efficiency, judicial economy, and
consistency than multiple trials.
The reasoning supporting the appointment of a commission to determine just
compensation, rather than multiple juries, was well-stated by the district court, and affirmed by
the Seventh Circuit, in Northern Border Pipeline Co. v. 64.111 Acres of Land in Will County,
2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14078, 7-8 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 20, 2000), aff’d, 344 F.3d 693, 695 (7th Cir.
2003):
[T]he compensation issues can be resolved more consistently and expeditiously by
a commission of experts in the fields of land valuation and eminent domain than
they can be by sixteen separate lay juries. Finally, appointing a commission to
determine the compensation issues serves the interests of judicial economy by
obviating the need for a sixteen jury trials or, as defendants suggest, one
enormous, consolidated trial for all sixteen tracts.
What made sense for sixteen tracts makes more sense for 27 and even more for 48.
Furthermore, at the hearing, View’s counsel described a compensation case of some
complexity, raising challenging issues regarding a possible loss in value relating to the pipeline’s
1
The Complaint in Civil Action No. 12-3680 alleges that Consolidated Rail Corporation
owns 21 parcels at issue.
3
impact on the previously approved development plan. The complexity of these issues is another
reason supporting the appointment of a commission of experts.
This Court exercises its discretion and will deny Defendants’ motions to determine just
compensation by jury trial. Instead, pursuant to Rule 71.1, this Court will appoint a three-person
commission to determine compensation.
For these reasons,
IT IS on this 22nd day of August, 2013, hereby
ORDERED that, in Civil Action No. 12-3499, Defendant Jersey City’s motion for a jury
trial (Docket Entry No. 32) is DENIED; and it is further
ORDERED that, in Civil Action No. 12-7115, Defendant View’s motion for a jury trial
(Docket Entry No. 30) is DENIED; and it is further
ORDERED that, in both cases, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 71.1(h), a
three-person commission be appointed to determine issues of just compensation.
s/ Stanley R. Chesler
Stanley R. Chesler, U.S.D.J
4
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?