Central Power Electric Cooperative Inc v. Jeanotte et al
Filing
40
ORDER Re Partial Consolidation of Cases by Magistrate Judge Charles S. Miller, Jr. (BG)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA
NORTHWESTERN DIVISION
David Houle and Becky Houle, et. al.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
Central Power Electric Cooperative, Inc.,
(CPEC), et. al.,
CPEC vs.
Cecil L. Jeannotte, et. al.,
CPEC vs.
Corey J. Hall, et. al.,
CPEC vs.
Cecil L. Jeannotte, et. al.,
CPEC vs.
Howard Longie, et. al.,
CPEC vs.
Est of Marie M. Jeanotte, et. al.,
CPEC vs.
Donna M. Anderson, et. al.,
CPEC vs.
Pete Barnett, et. al.,
CPEC vs.
John E. Monette, et. al.,
CPEC vs.
Ophelia Dixon Navarro, et. al.,
CPEC vs.
Kimberly Blackwell, et. al.,
CPEC vs.
Dustin Decoteau, et. al.,
CPEC vs.
Nick K. Wilkie, et. al.,
CPEC vs.
Gloria Davis, et. al.,
Defendants.
Plaintiff,
Defendants.
Plaintiff,
Defendants.
Plaintiff,
Defendants.
Plaintiff,
Defendants.
Plaintiff,
Defendants.
Plaintiff,
Defendants.
Plaintiff,
Defendants.
Plaintiff,
Defendants.
Plaintiff,
Defendants.
Plaintiff,
Defendants.
Plaintiff,
Defendants.
Plaintiff,
Defendants.
Plaintiff,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ORDER RE PARTIAL
CONSOLIDATION OF CASES
Case No. 4:09-cv-021
Case No. 4:11-cv-055
Case No. 4:11-cv-061
Case No. 4:11-cv-073
Case No. 4:11-cv-076
Case No. 4:11-cv-077
Case No. 4:11-cv-078
Case No. 4:11-cv-084
Case No. 4:11-cv-098
Case No. 4:11-cv-100
Case No. 4:11-cv-101
Case No. 4:12-cv-004
Case No. 4:12-cv-005
Case No. 4:12-cv-006
The court previously ordered the partial consolidation of twelve cases that involve
1
condemnation of easements for a 69 kV high-voltage power line across portions of the Turtle
Mountain Indian Reservation.
CPEC has filed two additional condemnation actions – CPEC v. Nick Wilkie, et. al., Case
No. 4:12-cv-005, and CPEC v. Gloria Davis, et. al., Case No. 4:12-cv-006 – that involve the
condemnation of easements for the same powerline.
The court, on its own motion, ORDERS:
1
The above captioned cases are consolidated for the limited purposes of briefing and
conducting a joint trial on the issues of “use and necessity” as well as for briefing of
issues that are common to all of the cases that the court may identify. The parties
may use a joint caption for such purposes, but, absent further direction from the
court, the pleadings shall be filed electronically in all cases in which the pleadings
apply.
2.
In all of the cases where the issues of “use and necessity” are an issue or where the
parties otherwise contest the right of Central Power to maintain its 69 kV line on
their property, the parties shall have until July 1, 2012, to file a brief on the issue of
whether or not the court may consider these issues. If the court decides that a trial
is necessary on the issues of “use and necessity” and the right of Central Power to
maintain its line in the location where it has been constructed, a joint court trial will
be conducted on those issues beginning on November 13, 2013, at 9:30 a.m. at the
United States Courthouse in Bismarck, North Dakota. Currently, five days have
been set aside for the trial.
3.
In addition, the court has identified another common issue that the parties should
2
submit a brief with respect to on or before July 1, 2012. The issue is whether 25
U.S.C. § 357 has been superseded by the provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 71.1 with
respect to the incorporation of state law. A number of courts have ruled in other
contexts that federal statutes incorporating state condemnation procedures have been
superseded. E.g., 26 East Tennessee Natural Gas Co. v. Groforth, 361 F.3d 814, 822
(4th Cir. 2004).
4.
The court shall in the future file a separate scheduling order in each case where no
scheduling and discovery deadlines have been established.
Dated this 27th day of March, 2012.
/s/ Charles S. Miller, Jr.
Charles S. Miller, Jr.
United States Magistrate Judge
3
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?