Hensley, et. al. v. Conner, et. al. (PLR1)

Filing 15

MEMORANDUM AND OPINION as set forth in following order. Signed by District Judge Pamela L Reeves on 11/19/18. (ABF)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT KNOXVILLE

SCOTT HENSLEY,
Plaintiff,
v.
TIMOTHY CONNER, et al.,
Defendants,
And
ED HOUSLEY, et al.,
Counter-Plaintiffs/Cross Plaintiffs/
Third-Party Plaintiffs,
v.
SCOTT HENSLEY,
Counter-Defendant,
TIMOTHY CONNER, et al.,
Cross-Defendants,
ELMER SEATON, et al.,
Third-Party Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No.
3:18-CV-173
REEVES/GUYTON

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the court on the Tennessee Valley Authority’s (TVA) motion
to dismiss and to remand all remaining claims to the Chancery Court for Jefferson County,

Tennessee. Plaintiff Scott Hensley and third-party plaintiffs Ed Housley and Sherri
Housley do not oppose the motion. However, defendants Lawrence and Kathy Slattery do
oppose the motion. Because plaintiffs seek no relief from TVA, the motion to dismiss is
granted and the remaining state law claims are remanded to the Chancery Court for
Jefferson County, Tennessee.
I. Background
Hensley originally filed a complaint in the Chancery Court for Jefferson County,
Tennessee.

TVA removed the action to this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441(a),

1442(a)(1), and 1446(b).
Henlsey owns a tract of land that is surrounded and enclosed by tracts of land that
defendants own. The Hensley tract is bounded by Douglas Lake, but has no access to a
public road, street, or utilities. Hensley brings this action seeking a right-of-way or
easement from defendants for ingress and egress and to run utilities to his property.
Hensley named TVA as a party to this action because his property is subject to a flowage
easement in favor of the United States for the use and benefit of TVA and all lands below
the 1007 contour line of Douglas Lake. Hensley does not seek to affect or change any
rights possessed by TVA and concedes that the easement rights being sought in this action
will be subject to TVA’s rights under the flowage easement where the road is below the
1007 contour line of Douglas Lake. Thus, Henley seeks no relief of any kind from TVA.
In opposing the motion to dismiss TVA, the Slatterys rely on a state court order
finding that TVA is an indispensable party to the litigation. The Slatterys state that
disposition of this action as it relates to TVA is inappropriate and premature because any
2

roadway and utility easement benefitting Hensley across the Slattery property will require
crossing through TVA’s flowage easement covering a portion of the Slattery property
situated below the 1007 contour. Therefore, the relief Hensley seeks – the right to construct
and maintain a roadway and utilities will necessarily conflict with and interfere with TVA’s
flowage easement. In the absence of TVA in this action, the Slatterys fear potential liability
to TVA based on the location and manner in which Hensley may construct the roadway he
seeks over the Slattery property. The Slatterys take no position as to TVA’s motion to
remand.
II. Discussion
A. Motion to Dismiss TVA
Failure to state a claim for relief from one defendant is a failure to state a claim as
to that defendant and warrants dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12 (b)(6).
Aladimi v. Hamilton Cnty Justice Ctr., 2012 WL 292587, *12 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 1, 2012).
The court agrees that while Hensley’s complaint seeks relief from other defendants in the
case, he does not seek to affect or change TVA’s rights under the flowage easement and
acknowledges that any road or easement will be subject to TVA’s flowage easement rights.
Nor do the third-party Housley plaintiffs seek any relief from TVA. And, the Slatterys
have not asserted any cross-claims against TVA. The Slatterys lack standing to oppose a
co-defendant’s motion where the opposing defendant has no cross-claims against the
moving defendant. See Hawes v. Blast-Tek, Inc., 2010 WL 2680778, *2 (D.Minn. Jul. 2,
2010) (holding that opposing defendant should not be able to force the plaintiff to maintain
claims against co-defendant).
3

In addition, the Slatterys fail to show that the proposed easement will cross or
otherwise obstruct TVA’s flowage easement. Hensley proposes two main options for the
location of the easement. The first option situates the easement across the properties of the
Slatterys, Dillons, Sotera, Davidson, Kings, and McMahans. The second option uses the
four-wheel drive road that crosses the Slattery and Housley properties. Hensley states
neither option crosses TVA’s flowage easement, and because TVA’s flowage easement
slopes sharply down to the water, the need to cross TVA’s easement appears remote. The
Housleys also propose two options for the location of the easement that do not involve
crossing TVA’s flowage easement.
The Slatterys seek to keep TVA as a party in this action by assuming that any
proposed easement will cross TVA’s flowage easement. However, there is nothing in the
record to support the assumption that any of the proposed easements will cross TVA’s
flowage easement. Frank Edmondson, Federal Land Manager, submitted a declaration
stating that if a proposed easement did interfere with TVA’s flowage easement, a party can
apply for a permit from TVA after the easement route is established and prior to its
construction. Because there are procedures in place to manage land uses that impact TVA’s
flowage easement, TVA’s dismissal from this litigation will not prejudice the Slatterys.
The Slatterys’ reliance on the state court order finding TVA an indispensable party
is misplaced. First, a federal court may dissolve or modify orders entered in state court
before removal. 28 U.S.C. § 1450; Schmalbach v. United States, 2017 WL 1130027, *1
(W.D.Mich. Mar. 27, 2017). Second, the state court order plainly states:

4

Third, notwithstanding the foregoing, any party in cause seeking statutory
easement by necessity pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated sections 5414-101, et seq. not seeking to cross any lands subject to the TVA’s flowage
easement shall not be required to make TVA a party with respect to such
claim. (Emphasis added).
Accordingly, because there is no claim asserted against TVA in this action and no
showing that plaintiffs are seeking to cross lands subject to TVA’s flowage easement, TVA
is DISMISSED as a party defendant in this action.
B. Motion to Remand
Regarding the motion to remand, if the federal party is dismissed from the suit after
removal under § 1442, the district court has discretion to remand the case to state court.
See Dist. Of Columbia v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 762 F.2d 129, 132-33 (D.C.Cir. 1985).
Federal courts may also decline to exercise supplementary jurisdiction over cases removed
under § 1441 and remand remaining state law claims to state court. In re Romulus Cmty
Sch., 729 F.2d 431, 439 (6th Cir. 1984). Generally, when all federal claims are dismissed,
the balance of considerations such as judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity
usually point to remanding state claims to the state court. Gamel v. City of Cincinnati, 625
F.3d 949, 952 (6th Cir. 2010).
jurisdiction.

TVA’s dismissal removes the grounds for federal

And, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the

remaining claims which involve questions under Tennessee law best decided by the state
court.

5

III. Conclusion
TVA’s motion to dismiss [R. 8] is GRANTED and TVA is DISMISSED as a party
defendant in this action. In addition, TVA’s motion to remand all remaining claims is
GRANTED, and this action is REMANDED to the Chancery Court for Jefferson County,
Tennessee.
ORDER TO FOLLOW.

______________________________________
___________________________________
_
_
_ _
_
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT
A S S
C

6