Lichoulas v. City of Lowell
937 N.E.2d 65
Mass. App. Ct.2010Background
- Plaintiff challenges Lowell's eminent-domain taking of the dormant Appleton Trust Project (hydro plant) in Land Court; Land Court dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; plaintiff appeals.
- Plaintiff held a 1986 FERC license to operate the project; plant ceased operation; by Sept. 2004 FERC deemed the project abandoned but did not terminate the license.
- On April 25, 2006, Lowell took the Appleton Mill Property by eminent domain as part of urban renewal; city notified FERC and sought project inspection.
- March 21, 2007, FERC issued notice of termination by implied surrender, initiating proceedings to terminate plaintiff's license.
- Federal suit in D. Mass. sought return of property and FPA-based takings claims; federal district court dismissed without prejudice in 2008; First Circuit held awaiting FERC outcome warranted dismissal; DC Circuit later affirmed termination.
- March 23, 2009, plaintiff filed Land Court action seeking return of title/control; alleged noncompliance with G.L. c. 164, §§ 35, 37 and FPA; Land Court dismissed; lis pendens issue ensued.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction to challenge taking in equity | Lichoulas asserts Land Court has equity jurisdiction over validity of taking under c. 164, §§ 35-37. | City contends Land Court lacks jurisdiction over federal takings and procedural claims; relies on limited state remedies. | Land Court has jurisdiction to hear equity challenge to the taking. |
| Remedy classification and FPA claims in state court | Plaintiff may bring FPA claims in state court as part of broader challenge to taking. | FPA claims fall exclusively in federal courts under 16 U.S.C. § 825p. | FPA claims are exclusively federal; state-law claims may proceed; FPA claims affirmed as properly dismissed in state court. |
| Res judicata effect of prior federal dismissal without prejudice | Federal dismissal without prejudice should not bar state-law proceedings. | Dismissal without prejudice may have preclusive effect under federal rules. | Federal dismissal without prejudice does not operate as a res judicata on state claims. |
| Pleading sufficiency under Rule 8 for state-law claims | Complaint sufficiently states a Massachusetts-based challenge to the taking. | Complaint lacks precise statutory theory and may be insufficient. | Rule 8(a) requires only a short, plain statement; pleading adequacy affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lichoulas v. Lowell, 555 F.3d 10 (1st Cir. 2009) (federal dismissal without prejudice permitted refiling after FERC outcome)
- Lichoulas v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commn., 606 F.3d 769 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (affirmed FERC license termination by implied surrender)
- Cumberland Farms, Inc. v. Montague Economic Dev. & Industrial Corp., 38 Mass. App. Ct. 615 (Mass. App. Ct. 1995) (procedural requirements for eminent domain taking; equity relief available)
- Chwalek v. Pittsfield, 3 Mass. App. Ct. 759 (Mass. App. Ct. 1975) (preconditions for taking; statutory compliance matters)
- Burwick v. Massachusetts Hy. Dept., 57 Mass. App. Ct. 302 (Mass. App. Ct. 2003) (strict compliance required for delegation of eminent domain power)
- McAuliffe & Burke Co. v. Boston Housing Authy., 334 Mass. 28 (1956) (equitable challenge to taking recognized)
- Raimondo v. Burlington, 366 Mass. 450 (Mass. 1974) (separate remedies for taking and damages under c. 79)
- Trustees of Reservations v. Stockbridge, 348 Mass. 511 (Mass. 1965) (eminent domain power exists only with express delegation)
- Providence & Worcester R.R. Co. v. Energy Facilities Siting Bd., 453 Mass. 135 (Mass. 2009) (statutory framework and agency processes scrutinized)
- Lajoie v. Lowell, 214 Mass. 8 (Mass. 1913) (origin of eminent domain delegation principle)
- Devine v. Nantucket, 449 Mass. 499 (Mass. 2007) (property taking powers and public use fundamentals)