United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Jacksonville Division
MORALES HOWARD, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
cases are before the Court on Plaintiff Sabal Trail
Transmission, LLC's motions for partial summary judgment
regarding date of valuation. (Case No. 3:16-cv-277-J-34JBT,
Doc. 74; Case No. 3:16-cv-300-J-34PDB, Doc. 78; Case No.
3:16-cv-317-J-34MCR, Doc. 70) (“Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment”). The defendant-landowners have
responded. (Case No. 3:16-cv-277-J-34JBT, Doc. 89; Case No.
3:16-cv-300-J-34PDB, Doc. 93; Case No. 3:16-cv-317-J-34MCR,
Doc. 85) (“Response”). Sabal Trail requests that
the Court enter an order establishing that the date of value
in these condemnation cases is June 8, 2016, which is the
date on which Sabal Trail obtained possession of the
properties at issue. Motion for Partial Summary Judgment at
2, 5. The landowners “do not disagree that the date of
value should be June 8, 2016.” Response at 2. However,
the landowners wish to assert that the date of value is June
8, 2016, because Florida law, rather than federal common law,
supplies the rule for measuring compensation. See
the parties agree that June 8, 2016, should be the date of
value, the motions for partial summary judgment are due to be
granted. The Court also notes, so as to correct any
misunderstanding, that the Order of June 15, 2017 - which
held that Florida law supplies the rule for measuring
compensation - applies to all cases captioned therein, which
includes these cases. (E.g., Case No.
3:16-cv-277-J-34JBT, Doc. 63 at 6, ¶ 1) (“Order on
the Measure of Compensation”). Consistent with the
Order on the Measure of Compensation, the Natural Gas Act
adopts Florida's substantive law of “full
compensation” “as the federal rule for measuring
compensation in these cases.” Id.
Rule 56, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Rule(s)),
“[t]he court shall grant summary judgment if the movant
shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material
fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of
law.” Rule 56(a). The record to be considered on a
motion for summary judgment may include “depositions,
documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or
declarations, stipulations (including those made for purposes
of the motion only), admissions, interrogatory answers, or
other materials.” Rule 56(c)(1)(A). An issue is
genuine when the evidence is such that a reasonable jury
could return a verdict in favor of the non-movant. See
Mize v. Jefferson City Bd. of Educ., 93 F.3d 739, 742
(11th Cir. 1996) (quoting Hairston v. Gainesville Sun
Publ'g Co., 9 F.3d 913, 919 (11th Cir. 1993)).
“[A] mere scintilla of evidence in support of the
non-moving party's position is insufficient to defeat a
motion for summary judgment.” Kesinger ex rel.
Estate of Kesinger v. Herrington, 381 F.3d 1243, 1247
(11th Cir. 2004) (citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby,
Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 252 (1986)).
party seeking summary judgment bears the initial burden of
demonstrating to the court, by reference to the record, that
there are no genuine issues of material fact to be determined
at trial. See Clark v. Coats & Clark, Inc., 929
F.2d 604, 608 (11th Cir. 1991). “When a moving party
has discharged its burden, the non-moving party must then go
beyond the pleadings, and by its own affidavits, or by
depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on
file, designate specific facts showing that there is a
genuine issue for trial.” Jeffery v. Sarasota White
Sox, Inc., 64 F.3d 590, 593-94 (11th Cir. 1995)
(citations and quotation marks omitted). Substantive law
determines the materiality of facts, and “[o]nly
disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit
under the governing law will properly preclude the entry of
summary judgment.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248.
In determining whether summary judgment is appropriate, a
court “must view all evidence and make all reasonable
inferences in favor of the party opposing summary
judgment.” Haves v. City of Miami, 52 F.3d
918, 921 (11th Cir. 1995) (citing Dibrell Bros.
Int'l, S.A. v. Banca Nazionale Del Lavoro, 38 F.3d
1571, 1578 (11th Cir. 1994)).
these cases, the motions for partial summary judgment do not
involve any factual disputes. The only question is purely one
of law: what date should be used to determine the value of
the properties Sabal Trail is condemning? Both parties agree
that the date to be used is June 8, 2016. Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment at 2; Response at 2. The only disagreement
is whether the date of value derives from federal common law
or Florida substantive law. However, as this Court has
already ruled, under Georgia Power Co. v. Sanders,
617 F.2d 1112 (5th Cir. 1980) (en banc), the Natural Gas Act
incorporates Florida substantive law as the federal rule for
measuring compensation. See generally Order on the
Measure of Compensation. Therefore, consistent with Florida
law, the date of valuation in these cases will be June 8,
it is hereby ORDERED:
Plaintiff Sabal Trail's motions for partial summary
judgment regarding date of value (Case No.
3:16-cv-277-J-34JBT, Doc. 74; Case No. 3:16-cv-300-J-34PDB,
Doc. 78; Case No. 3:16-cv-317-J-34MCR, Doc. 70) are
GRANTED. The date of value in these cases
will be June 8, 2016.
Consistent with the prior Order on the Measure of
Compensation, the Court clarifies that Florida substantive
law supplies the federal rule for measuring compensation
under the Natural Gas Act.