Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC v. Gail Brandon Cochran
910 F.3d 1130
| 11th Cir. | 2018Background
- Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Co. (Transcontinental) obtained a FERC certificate to build the Dalton Expansion Project, a 115‑mile natural‑gas lateral in northwest Georgia, with alignment sheets describing the approved right‑of‑way.
- After failing to contract easements with all landowners, Transcontinental filed >60 federal condemnation actions under 15 U.S.C. § 717f(h), attaching survey plats and the FERC certificate; the district court consolidated the suits.
- Transcontinental moved for partial summary judgment on its right to condemn and for preliminary injunctions to obtain immediate access to properties for construction; it submitted engineer, land‑rep, and project‑manager declarations and appraisals, and offered to post bonds.
- Defendants argued the plats exceeded FERC‑approved alignments, the proposed easement terms were vague/overbroad, discovery and oral testimony were necessary, and injunctions and cash deposits (not surety bonds) were required before entry.
- The district court granted partial summary judgment limited to the easements depicted on the FERC alignment sheets/attached survey plats, issued preliminary injunctions allowing immediate access conditioned on surety bonds equal to twice appraised easement values, and limited pre‑entry notice; Transcontinental posted bonds and built the pipeline.
- On interlocutory appeal, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed: (1) equitable preliminary injunctions are permissible in NGA condemnations after a right to condemn is established; (2) summary judgment was proper as no genuine dispute existed that the plats conformed to FERC alignment sheets and Transcontinental could not acquire the easements by contract; (3) the injunction and bond order were not an abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district courts may issue preliminary injunctions allowing immediate access in NGA §7(h) condemnation once right to condemn is established | Rule 65 and the court’s equitable powers allow injunctions when right to condemn is finally determined | Statute or Rule 71.1 supersession bars equitable relief or limits remedies | Court: Permissible; Eleventh Circuit joins other circuits allowing injunctions after substantive right is established |
| Whether summary judgment on Transcontinental’s right to condemn was appropriate (necessity & conformity to FERC approvals) | Alignment sheets + survey plats + engineer declaration show plats conform to FERC‑approved alignment; property is necessary | Plats may not match alignment sheets; discovery and expert testimony required to show discrepancies | Court: No genuine dispute; summary judgment proper (limited to easements depicted on FERC alignment sheets/survey plats) |
| Whether Transcontinental showed inability to acquire easements by contract (pre‑suit offers were overbroad/vague) | Parties failed to reach agreements despite offers (including above‑market offers); offers valid under Georgia law | Offers sought broader rights than condemnable (e.g., substances other than natural gas) and were too vague to be enforceable; thus no meaningful negotiation | Court: Failure to reach agreement suffices; offers not so vague as to be invalid under Georgia law; Transcontinental established inability to acquire by contract |
| Whether bond must be cash (pre‑entry deposit) rather than a surety bond under federal law or Georgia Constitution | Defendants: Fifth Amendment/Georgia Const. require cash deposit before taking | Transcontinental/ district court: Rule 65(c) allows court discretion to require appropriate security; no federal statute mandates cash deposit here | Court: District court did not abuse discretion; requiring a surety bond (here, twice appraised easement values) was lawful |
Key Cases Cited
- Southern Natural Gas Co. v. Land, Cullman Cty., 197 F.3d 1368 (11th Cir. 1999) (federal Rule 71.1 governs practice in NGA condemnation actions)
- Transwestern Pipeline Co. v. 17.19 Acres of Prop., 550 F.3d 770 (9th Cir. 2008) (preliminary injunctions permitting immediate access are permissible where right to condemn is established)
- E. Tenn. Nat. Gas Co. v. Sage, 361 F.3d 808 (4th Cir. 2004) (same; discussion of injunctions and bond conditions in pipeline condemnations)
- Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC v. 1.01 Acres, 768 F.3d 300 (3d Cir. 2014) (same; precedent on injunctive relief in NGA condemnations)
- Grupo Mexicano de Desarrollo, S.A. v. Alliance Bond Fund, Inc., 527 U.S. 308 (1999) (limits of equitable relief where courts cannot create new substantive rights)