Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-02312/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-02312-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 210
Nature of Suit: Land Condemnation
Cause of Action: 15:717 Natural Gas Act

---

1

Also referred to as Trusts 3435 and 3436.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

TRANSWESTERN PIPELINE )

COMPANY, LLC, )

)

Plaintiff, ) 2:07-cv-02312 JWS

)

vs. ) ORDER AND OPINION

)

) [Re: Motion at Docket 193]

46.78 ACRES, MORE OR LESS, OF )

PERMANENT EASEMENT LOCATED )

IN MARICOPA COUNTRY, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

)

I. MOTION PRESENTED

At docket 193, plaintiff Transwestern Pipeline Company, LLC (“Transwestern”)

moves for summary judgment on all remaining claims in this action. At docket 198,

defendants First American Title Insurance Company, as Trustee under Trusts 8435 and

8436,1

 and WVSV Holdings, LLC (“defendants”) oppose the motion. Transwestern

replies at docket 201. Oral argument was requested, but it would not assist the court. 

Case 2:07-cv-02312-JWS Document 202 Filed 11/01/10 Page 1 of 5
2

The facts in this background section are undisputed. See, docs. 194 and 199.

3

Doc. 65.

4

Doc. 161-1 at p. 5.

-2-

II. BACKGROUND2

This action involves Transwestern’s condemnation of property for an easement

transecting a parcel of defendants’ property located in the Town of Buckeye, Arizona,

for the purpose of constructing the approximately 260-mile expansion of Transwestern’s

existing interstate natural gas pipeline in accordance with a Certificate of Public

Convenience and Necessity issued by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

(“FERC”) on November 15, 2007.3 WVSV Holdings, LLC is the beneficial owner of the

subject property, while First American Title Insurance Company, as Trustee under

Trusts 8435 and Trust 8436, holds the title to the majority of the property.4

By order dated June 19, 2008, the court granted the parties’ stipulation allowing

Transwestern’s immediate entry and possession of a 50-foot-wide permanent

easement, temporary workspace and temporary access roadway transecting the subject

property. The sole remaining issues in this condemnation action involve: 1) the amount

of compensation for the permanent easement; 2) the amount of compensation for usage

of the temporary workspace for the period to install the natural gas pipeline; and 3) the

amount of compensation for severance damages, if any, to the remainder of the

property.

Transwestern’s expert, Donald Duncan, valued the permanent easement and

use of the temporary workspace at $317,300. Defendants’ expert, James Chalmers,

Case 2:07-cv-02312-JWS Document 202 Filed 11/01/10 Page 2 of 5
5

Docs. 179, 180,

6

Docs. 182, 186.

7

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986).

8

Id. at 323-25.

9

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248-49 (1986).

10Id. at 255.

-3-

valued the permanent easement and use of the temporary workspace at $336,900. 

Mr. Duncan valued defendants’ alleged severance damages at $0.00. By orders filed

on April 14 and 26, 2010, the court excluded all of defendants’ proffered expert opinions

and reports concerning severance damages.5

 Defendants moved for reconsideration of

the court’s orders, which the court denied by order filed on June 1, 2010.6

III. SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD

Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that summary judgment

should be granted if there is no genuine dispute as to material facts and if the moving

party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The moving party has the burden of

showing that there is no genuine dispute as to material fact.7

 The moving party need

not present evidence; it need only point out the lack of any genuine dispute as to

material fact.8 Once the moving party has met this burden, the nonmoving party must

set forth evidence of specific facts showing the existence of a genuine issue for trial.9

All evidence presented by the non-movant must be believed for purposes of summary

judgment, and all justifiable inferences must be drawn in favor of the non-movant.10

However, the nonmoving party may not rest upon mere allegations or denials, but must

Case 2:07-cv-02312-JWS Document 202 Filed 11/01/10 Page 3 of 5
11Id. at 248-49.

-4-

show that there is sufficient evidence supporting the claimed factual dispute to require a

fact-finder to resolve the parties’ differing versions of the truth at trial.11

IV. DISCUSSION

Transwestern argues that it is entitled to summary judgment on the grounds that

there in no dispute as to its entitlement to the permanent easement, no dispute of

material fact as to the compensation owed defendants for the permanent easement and

temporary workspace, and no dispute of material fact regarding the lack of severance

damages. In opposition to the motion, defendants argue that the court erred in

excluding all four of defendants’ witnesses on the issue of severance damages, and

request the court to revisit its decisions at dockets 179, 180, 182, and 196. 

As to the amount of compensation owed defendants for the permanent easement

and temporary workspace, Transwestern states that it will not oppose entry of a

judgment in the amount of $336,900, the amount determined by defendants’ expert as

the compensation due for the permanent easement and temporary workspace. 

Defendants did not oppose the entry of $336,900 as the compensation due for the

permanent easement and temporary workspace. Thus, plaintiffs are entitled to

summary judgment on the amount of compensation due for the permanent easement

and temporary workspace.

As to the amount of compensation for severance damages, if any, to the

remainder of the property, Transwestern argues that defendants cannot establish a

prima facie claim for severance damages in light of the court’s prior orders excluding all

Case 2:07-cv-02312-JWS Document 202 Filed 11/01/10 Page 4 of 5
-5-

of defendants’ witnesses on the issue of severance damages. Defendants concede that

they have no evidence to present at trial on the issue of severance damages, but argue

that the court erred in excluding its four witnesses concerning severance damages and

request the court to “revisit” or reconsider its prior orders. Here, as in defendants’ prior

motions for reconsideration, defendants have not presented any newly discovered

evidence or shown that the court committed clear error in its orders at dockets 179, 180,

182, and 196. Nor have defendants shown that an intervening change in controlling law

has occurred. Accordingly, the court denies defendants’ request to revisit its prior

orders excluding the expert witness testimony and reports defendants proffered in

support of severance damages. Because there is no dispute of material fact regarding

severance damages, Transwestern is entitled to summary judgment on defendants’

claim for severance damages.

V. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set out above, plaintiff’s motion at docket 193 for summary

judgment as to all of its remaining claims is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall please lodge a

proposed form of judgment.

DATED this 1st day of November 2010.

/s/JOHN W. SEDWICK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:07-cv-02312-JWS Document 202 Filed 11/01/10 Page 5 of 5