United States of America et al v. Northcutt et al (TV2)

Filing 17

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting 15 Motion to Strike Defendant's Answer with Respect to Defendant's Objections to the Taking. Signed by Magistrate Judge C Clifford Shirley, Jr on 12/10/2013. (KAW)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT KNOXVILLE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
upon the relation and for the use of the
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY,

)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
AN EASEMENT AND RIGHT-OF-WAY
)
OVER 3.73 ACRES OF LAND, MORE OR LESS, )
AND ADDITIONAL RIGHTS WITH RESPECT )
TO A PREEXISTING EASEMENT AND
)
RIGHT-OF-WAY OVER LAND IN
)
KNOX COUNTY, TENNESSEE, and
)
TIMOTHY J. NORTHCUTT, ET UX,
)
)
Defendants.
)

No. 3:13-CV-519
(VARLAN/SHIRLEY)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This case is before the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Rules of this Court,
and Standing Order 13-02.
Now before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Defendants’ Answer with Respect to
Defendants’ Objections to the Taking [Doc. 15], in which the Plaintiff moves the Court to strike
the portions1 of the Defendants’ Answer that object to the taking in this case. Plaintiff brought
this condemnation action to take a permanent easement over the land at issue for purposes of
erecting a power-transmission line. Defendants object to the taking on two grounds. First, they
argue that the taking is meant only to satisfy the needs of the adjoining landowner, and second,
they maintain that the selection of the location of the transmission line easement is “arbitrary”
and “capricious.”
1

Plaintiff refers generally to the “portions of Defendants’ Answer that object to the taking.” Plaintiff has not
identified specific paragraphs or lines to be stricken.

Plaintiff argues that federal courts have uniformly and repeatedly held that the two
defenses presented by the Defendants are legally insufficient. [Doc. 16 at 3 (citing Ledford v.
Corps of Eng’rs of the United States, 500 F.2d 26 (6th Cir. 1974))]. Plaintiff, therefore, moves
the Court to strike these defenses pursuant to Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Plaintiff maintains that this case should proceed to trial on one issue: the amount of just
compensation due for the taking. [Id.]
The Court finds that the Defendants have failed to respond in opposition to the Motion to
Strike [Doc. 15], within the time allowed under Local Rule 7.1 and the applicable Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure, despite counsel for the Defendants having received notice of its filing on
October 23, 2013, [see Doc. 15 at 2]. Pursuant to Local Rule 7.2, the Court may treat the
Defendants’ failure to respond as acquiescence to the relief sought.
Accordingly, the Court finds that the Motion to Strike Defendants’ Answer with Respect
to Defendants’ Objections to the Taking [Doc. 15] is well-taken, and it is GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
ENTER:
s/ C. Clifford Shirley, Jr.
United States Magistrate Judge

2