# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 5- 29 64

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Ch as e Bar fie ld

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff

Mi ch ael D. Biffl e; Gin a Bi ffl e; Dwig ht K. Rob ert so n

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff s - Ap pe ll ees

J. Ca ro l Hu tc he ns ; Ro wen a Hut ch en s

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff s

v.

Sh o- Me Po wer Ele ct ric Co op erat iv e; Sh o- Me Tec hn ol og ie s, LLC

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an ts - App el la nt

s

KAMO Elec tri c Co op erat iv e, In c.; K-P owe rNet , LLC

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t s

----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----

Nati on al Ru ral Elec tri c Co op erat iv e Ass oc ia ti on ; As so ci at ed Elec tri c Co op erat iv e;

Ass oc ia ti on of M is so ur i El ect ric Co op erat iv es

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l

Amici on Beha lf

of App el la nt

s

__ __ __ __ __ __
App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Weste rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i - J effe rs on Cit y__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Sep te m

be r 22 , 20 16
Fil ed : M arch 29 , 20 17

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re LOKEN, GRUEND ER, an d B ENTON, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

BENTON, Circu it Ju dg e.

Thi s cas e is ab ou t th e sc op e of eas em en ts un de r Mi ss ou ri la w an d th e rem ed ie s
if eas em en t ho ld ers ex ceed th ei r rig ht s. Sh o- Me Po wer Co op erat iv e he ld eas em en ts

to co ns tru ct an d op erat e an el e c t ric tra ns m is si on li ne ov er th ou sa nd s of pa rcel s. In

1 9 97

, it de ci de d to in st al l fib er-o pt ic cab le s al on gs id e it s el ect ric al li ne s. S h o

- M e

us e d t h e cab le s fo r in te rn al co m m un ic at io ns

. Sh o- Me as si gn ed th e cab le s’ ex ces s

c a p a ci ty to a se pa rat e co m pa ny, Sh o- Me Tech no lo gi es , LLC (Tech ), to op erat e a

pu bl ic -s erv in g co m

m erci al te le co m

m un ic at io ns bu si ne ss

. A pu ta ti ve cl as s of own ers
of la nd su bjec t to Sh o- Me’s eas em en ts su ed Sh o- Me an d Tech fo r tre sp as s an d un jus t

en ric hm en t. The di st ric t co ur t cert ifi ed a cl as s of la nd own ers , gr an te d th e la nd own ers

su m m ary jud gm en t o n l ia bi li ty, an d h el d a jury tria l o n d am ag es . The d is tri ct co ur t

in st ru ct ed th e jury to award th e la nd own ers “ th e fai r m ark et ren ta l va lu e” of Sh o- Me

an d Tech ’s us e of th e fib er-o pt ic cab le o n th e la nd own er’s la nd “ fo r

co m m erci al -te le co m

m un ic at io ns pu rp os es .” The jury award ed th e la nd own ers ov er $7 9 m il li on

.

Sh o- Me a n d Te ch ap pe al th e li ab il it y de te rm in at io ns , da m ag es in st ru ct io ns ,

e v id en ti ary ru li ng s, an d cl as s cert ifi cat io n. Hav in g juri sd ic ti on un de r 28 U.S

. C

. § 12 91

, th is co u r t a f

fir m s th e su m

m ary jud gm en t on tre sp as s li ab il it y an d th e cl as s

cert ifi cat io n, rev ers es th e su m m ary jud gm en t on un

jus t-e nr ic hm en t li ab il it y , va cat es
th e d am ag es award , and rem an ds

.

-2

-I.

Sh o- Me is a ru ral el ect ric co op erat iv e (REC) g ov ern ed by Mi ss ou ri’s Ru ral

Elec tri c Co op erat iv e Law, Ch ap te r 39 4 RSM o. Befo re 19 92

, Sh o- Me go t eas em en ts

acro ss th ou sa nd s of pa rcel s in so ut he rn Mi ss ou ri. The se eas em en ts ’ la ng ua ge va rie s.
The y al l gr an t Sh o- Me th e rig ht to co ns tru ct an d op erat e an el ect ric tra ns m is si on li ne

. So m e gr an t th e rig ht to co ns tru ct ap pu rt en an ces or do th in gs “ ne ces sa ry an d us efu l

to th e en joy m en t of th e eas em en t.” The di st ric t co ur t br ok e th e eas em en ts in to

se ve ral cat eg or ie s, th ree at is su e in th is ap pe al : Cat eg or y 1A (“ Ease m en ts fo r el ect ric

tr a n s mi s si on li ne on ly or fo r el ect ric tra ns m is si on li ne wit h un sp eci fie d

ap pu rte na nc es ”), Cat eg or y 1B (“ Ease m en ts fo r el ect ric tr a ns m is si on li ne s an d

ap pur te na nc es w hic h inc lud e spe ci fi c re ferenc es to co m m un ic at io ns eq ui pm en t” ), an d

Cat eg or y 1C (“ Co ur t o rd ers co nd em ni ng eas em en ts li m it ed to ele ct ric tra ns m is si on
li ne s an d ge ne ric ap pu rte na nc es or sp eci fy in g rel at ed co m m un ic at io ns eq ui pm en t” ).

Sh o- Me a nd Tech do no t d is pu te th e d is tri ct co ur t’s ca te go riz at io ns

.

As pa rt of it s el ect ric al tra ns m is si on op erat io ns , S ho -Me co m m un ic at es wit h

un at t e n d e d p o w e r su bs ta ti on s. It us ed to do th is by m ic ro wav e rad io freq ue nc ie s.

Bu t in 19 95

, th e Fed eral Co m m un ic at io ns Co m

m is si on an no un c e d t h a t th es e freq ue nc ie s wou ld no lo ng er be av ai la bl e fo r ut il it ie s. In res po ns e, Sh o- Me

de ve lo pe d a pl an

. It in st al le d fib er-o pt ic cab le s al on gs id e it s e l e c t r ic al li ne s, us in g
th e cab le s fo r in te rn al co m m un ic at io ns

. It al so fo rm ed Tech as a su bs id ia ry co m pa ny.
Sh o- Me as si gn ed Tech th e cab le s’ e xc es s cap aci ty s o Tech co ul d of fer co m m erci al

te le co mm u n i c a ti on s se rv ic es to th e pu bl ic

. Tech cu rren tl y pr ov id es br oa db an d

se rv ic es to in di vi du al s an d b us in es se s ac ro ss so ut he rn Mi ss ou ri.

In 20 10 (in st at e co ur t) an d th en in 20 11 (in fed eral co ur t), Mic ha el an d Gin a
Bi ffl e, Dwig ht Ro be rts on , an d Ch as e Barf ie ld —o wne rs of la nd su bjec t to Sh o- Me

eas em en ts —fi le d p u t a t i v e cl as s act io ns ag ai ns t Sh o- Me an d Tech

. The y al le ge d

Tech ’s us e o f th e fi be r-o pt ic cab le fo r pu bl ic -s erv in g tel eco m m un ic at io ns pu rp os es

-3

-was no t au th or iz ed by th e eas em en ts

, m ak in g Sh o- Me an d Tech li ab le fo r tre sp as s an d

un jus t en ric hm en t. The di st ric t cou rt cert ifi ed a Ru le 23 (b )(3 ) cl as s of “ All pe rs on s
who own or own e d la nd in Mi ss ou ri un de rlyin g Defen da nt s’ el ect ric -tr an sm is si on
li ne s th at is bu rd e n e d b y a n eas em en t wit h ei th er Defen da nt or th ei r su bs id ia rie s,
whi ch eas em en t do es no t co nt ai n an arb it rat i o n c l a us e, an d on or in whi ch a
Defen da nt ha s li cen se d th e fib er op ti c cab le fo r co m m erci al -te le co m

m un ic at io n us es

o r ha s us ed th e fib er op ti c cab le fo r co m m erci al -te le co m

m un ic at io n us es .” Th e
di st ric t co ur t en te red su m m ary jud gm en t ag a i ns t Sh o- Me an d Tech

, ho ld in g th em
l ia bl e fo r tre sp as s an d un jus t en ric hm en t on th e Cat eg or y 1A- C eas em en t s

. Th e 1

la nd o w n e rs pr oc eed ed to a jury tri al fo r da m ag es on th e un jus t-e nr ic hm en t cl ai m
al on e. The jury a w a r d e d t he la nd own ers $7 9,0 14 ,14 0 fo r th e “ fai r m ark et ren ta l

va lu e” o f Sh o- Me a nd Tech ’s un au th or iz ed us e o f th e eas em en ts

.

II.

Sh o- Me an d Tech co nt en d th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in gr an ti ng su m m ary jud gm en t on li ab il it y be cau se it m is co ns tru ed Mi ss ou ri eas em en t la w. Thi s co ur t

rev ie ws de no vo th e di st ric t co ur t’s su m m ary jud gm en t de ci si on

. Wa lk er v. Ha rt fo rd
Life & Acc id

ent In s. Co

. , 83 1 F.3 d 96 8, 97 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 16 ). It al so rev ie ws de no vo

th e di st ric t co ur t’s in te rp ret at io n of Mi ss ou ri la w. Id

. Wh e n i n t erp ret in g Mi ss ou ri

la w, t hi s co ur t is “ bo un d by t he de ci si on s o f th e Su pr em e Co ur t o f Mi ss ou ri. If th e

Su pr em e Co ur t of Mi ss ou ri ha s no t ad dr es se d an is su e, we m us t pr ed ic t ho w th e co ur t

wou ld ru le

, an d we fo ll ow de ci si on s fro m th e in te rm ed ia te st at e co ur ts whe n th ey are
th e be st ev id en ce of Mi ss ou ri la w.” Wa sh in gt on v. Co unt ry wi de Ho m e Loa ns

, In c. , 74 7 F.3 d 95 5, 95 7- 58 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 ). Si nc e th e pa rti es do no t po in t to an y ge nu in e
di sp ut e of m at eri al fact

, th e qu es ti on is whe th er Sh o- Me an d Tech ’s us e of th e fib erThe di st ric t co ur t gr an te d su m mar y jud gm en t to Sh o- Me an d Tech on 1

eas em en ts in th e rem ai ni ng cat eg or ie s.

-4

-op ti c cab le fo r co m m erci al te l e c om m

un ic at io ns m ak es it li ab le un de r Mi ss ou ri la w
fo r tr es pa ss an d u nju st en ric hm en t.

A.

The lan do wne rs arg ue —an d t he di st ric t co ur t fo un d— th at Sh o- Me a nd Tech

are li ab le fo r tre sp as s un de r Mi ss ou ri la w fo r ex ceed in g th e sc op e of Sh o- M e ’s

e a s e men ts

. Thi s arg um en t rai se s two qu es ti on s. Fi rs t, di d Sh o- Me an d Tech ’s u s e

ex ceed th e sc op e of th e eas em en ts ? And se co nd

, if th ei r us e di d ex ceed th e sc op e of

th e eas em en ts , was i t a t res pa ss ?

1.

An eas em en t is “ a rig ht t o u s e th e la nd fo r pa rti cu la r pu rp os es .” St . C ha rl es

Ct y. v. Lac le de Gas Co

. , 35 6 S.W .3d 13 7, 13 9 (Mo

. ba nc 20 11 ); Fa rm er s Dra in ag e

Dis t. of Ra

y Ct y. v. Si ncl

ai r Ref. Co

. , 25 5 S.W .2d 74 5

, 74 8 (Mo

. 19 53 ) (“ An

‘easem en t’ is no t th e co m

pl et e own ers hi p of la nd wit h th e rig ht to us e it fo r al l la wfu l

pu rp os es pe rp et ua ll y

an d t hr ou gh ou t i ts en ti re ext en t, bu t it is a rig ht on ly to o ne or

m or e pa rti cu la r us es

. . . .”). So m e eas em en ts in Cat eg or ie s 1A- C ex pl ic it ly refe r to

a pu rp os e wit h la ng ua ge li ke “ fo r th e pu rp os e of tra ns m it ti ng el ect ric or ot he r po wer,”

“ fo r el ect rif

ic at io n pu rp os es ,” “ fo r el ectri cal po wer ut il it y an d rel at ed co m m un ic at io n

pu rp os es ,” “ fo r th e pu rp os e of tra ns m it ti ng an d su pp lying el ect ric e n e r g y.” Oth er

eas em en ts do no t ex pl ic it ly st at e a “ pu rp os e,” bu t do sp eci fi c a l l y gr an t th e rig ht to

co ns tru ct an ele ct ric tra ns m is si on li ne

.

The pa rti es ag ree th at th e eas em en ts gi ve Sh o

- Me th e rig ht to in st al l an d us e
fib er-o pt ic cab le s fo r in te rn al co m m un ic at io ns rel at ed to su pp lying el ect ric it y

. The y
di sa gr ee wh e t h e r t h e eas em en ts gi ve Sh o- Me an d Tech th e rig ht to us e fib er-o pt ic

cab le s in st al le d on th e eas em en t l an d fo r co m m erci al tel eco m

m un ic at io ns pu rp os es

un rel at ed to su pp lying ele ct ric it y

.

-5

-A M is so ur i st at ut e, § 52 3.2 83 RSM o, go ve rn s t he us e o f eas em en ts acq ui red

aft er Aug us t 28

, 20 06

, by a ut il it y or REC. It req ui res “ ap pr op ria te co ns id erat io n an d

da m ag es to th e cu rren t own er of th e pr op ert y ” fo r “ Exp an de d us e of th e p r o p ert y
be y on d th at whi ch is de sc rib ed in th e in st ru m en t of co nv ey an ce or th e co nd em na ti on

pe ti ti on .” § 52 3.2 83 .1

. It de fin es “ ex pa nd ed us e” to in cl ud e “ An in crea se d fo ot pr in t

or bu rd en , ” mea n i n g “ a di ffer en t type of us e or a us e pr es en ti ng an un reas on ab ly

bu rd en so m e im

pa ct .” § 5 23 .28 3.2 (2 )

.

The cl os es t cas e ap pl y in g § 52 3.2 83 is Ca rr ol l Elect ri c Co op er at iv e Co rp

. v.

La mbe rt
, 40 3 S.W .3d 63 7 (M o. Ap p. 2 01 2) . There , an REC pe ti ti on ed to co nd em n

eas em en ts “ to erec t, op era t e , s u r v e y, m ai nt ai n

. . . on e or m or e el ect ric po wer

tra ns m is si on an d/ or di st rib ut io n li ne (s ) an d ap pu rte na nt co m m un ic at io n li ne s

. . . an d

to li cen se , pe rm it

, or ot he rwis e ag ree to th e joi n t u s e o r o c c u pa nc y of th e li ne or

s ys te m by an y ot he r pe rs on , as so ci at io n or co rp or at io n fo r el ect rif ic at io n o r

co m m un ic at io n pu rp os es

. . . .” Id

. at 64 1 (al te rat io ns in or ig in al ) (em ph as is om it te d)

. Lan do wne rs ch al le ng ed th e co nd em na ti on pe ti ti on s. The y co nc ed ed th e REC co ul d

in st a l l a p pu rte na nt co m m un ic at io ns li ne s, bu t arg ue d th at th e “ joi nt us e or

oc cu pa nc y ” pr ov is io n wou ld pe rm it th e co op erat iv e to al lo w a co m pa ny li ke

Med ia co m or Veri zo n to us e th e eas em en ts fo r co m m un ic at io ns pu rp os es

. Id

. at 64 4.

The REC sa id th at whi le “ th e joi nt oc cu pa nc y pr ov is io n in th es e eas e men t s a l lo w [s ic ] ot he r el ect ric co op erat iv es to bu y an d se ll el ect ric it y to each ot he r,” i t d i d no t

al lo w an y no n- el e c t r i c i t y u s es

. Id

. at 64 4- 45

. The co ur t ag reed wit h th e REC th at

“ an y us e ot he r th an fo r el ect ric it y is an ex pa nd ed us e of th e pr op os ed eas em en ts th at

wou ld be pro hi bi te d b y

§ 5 23 .28 3.” Id

. at 6 45

.

Sect io n 52 3.2 83 ap pl ie s on ly to eas em en ts acq ui red aft er Aug us t 28

, 20 06

, so
it do es no t go ve rn Sh o- Me’s eas em en ts

. Bu t Ca rr ol l Elec tr ic ’s an al y si s is in st ru ct iv e
be cau se § 52 3.2 83 do es no t ch an ge earl ie r la w. The Ca rr ol l Elec tr ic co ur t su gg es ts

th is by no ti ng , “ Lan do wne rs d o no t m en ti on § 52 3.2 83

, bu t in st ead rel y on cas es
in vo lv in g ex pa nd ed us es th at pr ed at e th e st at ut e’s en act m en t in 20 06 .” 40 3 S.W .3d

-6

-at 64 6 n.6

, ci ti ng Eur ek a R ea l Es ta te & In v. Co . v. S. Rea l Es ta te & Fi n. Co

. , 20 0

S.W .2d 32 8 (Mo

. 19 47 ), an d Ogg v. Med ia co m , L.L.C.

, 14 2 S.W .3d 80 1 (Mo

. App

. 20 04 ). Se e al

so Dale A. W hi tm an , Em in ent Dom a i n R e f o r m in Mi

ss ou ri : A
Leg is la ti ve Mem oi r , 71 Mo

. L. Rev

. 72 1, 75 3 (2 00 6) (s ta ti ng th at § 52 3.2 83 “ m ak es

no ch an ge i n e x is ti ng la w a t al l” ). Se e ge ne ra ll y Mi d- Am . Te le vi

si on Co . v

. S ta te 2

Tax Co m m ’n , 6 52 S.W .2d 67 4, 67 9 (Mo . b an c 19 8 3 ) (ex pl ai ni ng th at whi le a ne w

st at ut e g en eral ly chan ge s t he ex is ti ng la w, a st at ut e can als o s im pl y cla rif y ex is ti ng
la w). S e c t i o n 5 2 3.2 83 ap pe ars to co di fy th e Mi ss ou ri la w on th e us e of eas em en ts

he ld by RECs an d u ti li ti es

.

Pre- 20 06 Mi ss ou ri cas e la w, whi ch co nt ro ls th is cas e, is fu ll y co ns is te nt wit h
§ 52 3.2 83 an d Ca rr ol l Elec tr ic

. In Eur eka

, a st reet rai lway co nd em ne d an eas em en t

fo r th e “ pu rp os e of th e rai lro ad ‘tog et he r wit h al l n e ces sa ry si de tra ck s, tu rn ou ts

,
st at io ns , po wer ho us es , sh ed s, y ard s, po le s, wire s an d ot he r ap pl ia nc es an d m ean s

ne ces sa ry an d co nv en ie nt fo r an d ap pu rte na nt to th e sa m e.’” 20 0 S.W .2d at 33 0. The

Su pr em e C o u r t o f Mi ss ou ri ex pl ai ne d th at th is eas em en t al lo wed th e rai lway’ s

su cces so r to m ai nt ai n a po wer l in e “ to fur ni sh po wer to str eet cars .” Id

. It hel d th at

The Mi ss ou ri C ou rt o f App eal s h as rel ie d on Pro fes so r W hi tm an ’s art ic le to 2

de te rm in e th e m ean in g of an ot he r pa rt of th e 20 06 st at ut e. Se e Pla nned In du s. Ex pa ns io n Aut

h. of Ka ns as Ci ty v. Iv an ho e Neig hb or ho od Co unci l

, 3 16 S.W .3d
41 8, 4 26 -2 7 (Mo

. App

. 20 10 ). A un an im ou s Sup rem e Co ur t o f Mi ss ou ri h as rel ie d

on W hi tm an ’s art ic le to ho ld th at a jud ic ia l rem ed y co ex is ts wit h a rem ed y crea te d by
th e 20 06 st at ut e. Se e Cl

ay Ct y. Rea l t y C o

. v

. Ci ty of Gla ds to ne , 25 4 S.W .3d 85 9,
86 4, 86 7- 68 (Mo

. ba nc 20 08 ). One su pr em e co ur t ju d g e qu ot ed W hi tm an ’s art ic le

to su pp or t th e co nc lu si on th at so m e la ng ua ge in th e 20 06 st at ut e “ co di fie d” cas e la w. Se e Cent ene Pl

az a R ed evel op m ent Co rp . v. Min t Pro

ps

. , 22 5 S .W .3d 43 1, 4 36 n.2 (Mo

. ba n c 20 07 ) (St it h, J., co nc ur rin g)

. In pr ed ic ti ng ho w th e Su pr em e Co ur t of
Mi ss ou ri wou ld de ci de th is is su e, W hi tm an ’s art ic le is pe rs ua si ve ev id en ce of th e

mea n i ng of § 52 3.2 83

. In an y ev en t, th is co ur t do es no t res t it s de te rm in at io n th a t § 52 3.2 83 co di fie s earl ie r Mi ss o u r i la w so le ly on W hi tm an ’s art ic le

. Tha t de te rm in at io n res ts la rg el y on th e co ns is te nc y be twee n pr e-2 00 6 cas e la w, an d § 5 23 .28 3 a nd Ca rr ol l El ect ri c

.

-7

-th e eas em en t di d no t au th or iz e th e rai lway’ s su cces so r to pe rm it an el ect ric co m pa ny

to co ns tru ct an “ ad di ti o n a l p o w e r li ne ” th at ha d “ no co nn ect io n wha te ve r wit h th e
el ect ric li ne s or pu rp os es of th e st reet rai lway.” Id

. at 33 2. Acco rd Ogg

, 14 2 S.W .3d

at 80 8- 10 (cab le TV c o mp a n y’s in st al la ti on of fib er-o pt ic cab le s no t au th or iz ed by

el ect ric co op erat iv e’s pr es cri pt iv e eas em en t).

The Eur eka co ur t qu ot ed fro m d i c t a in St

. Lo ui s, I.M. & S. Ry. v. Ca pe
Gir ar de au Bell Tel ep ho ne C o. , 11 4 S.W

. 58 6 (Mo

. App

. 19 08 ), ad dr es si ng an

eas em en t us e ne arl y id en ti cal to Sh o- Me an d Tech ’s: whe re a “ rai lro ad rig ht of way

co ns is ts of an eas em en t on ly

. . . an d th e te le gr ap h is co ns tru ct ed th ereo n un de r a

co nt ract wit h th e rai lro a d co m pa ny fo r th e pu rp os e of se rv in g th e rai lro ad in it s

op erat io ns ; bu t fo r th e pu rp os e, as well

, on th e pa rt of th e te le gr ap h co m pa ny, to se rv e
th e ge n e r a l pu bl ic as a co m m erci al en te rp ris e.” Id

. at 58 8. Und er th os e
ci rcu m st an ces , “ in so far as th e te le gr ap h co m pa ny se rv es th e pu rp os e of th e rai lro ad

, it s oc cu pa nc y of th e rig ht of way eas em en t is no t an ad d i t i o na l se rv it ud e or bu rd en

up on th e fee of whi ch he m ay co m pl ai n” be cau se “ su ch us e is a l e g i t i m at e
de ve lo pm en t fo r rai lro ad pu rp os es es se nt ia ll y co nt em pl at ed in th e gr an t o f th e

eas em en t.” Id

. It fu rth er ex pl ai ne d th at us e fo r th e ad di ti o n a l p u bl ic -s erv in g

te le co m m un ic at io ns pu rp os e wou ld no t b e p erm it te d:

Nev ert he le ss , in so far as th e te le gr ap h or te le p h o n e co m pa ny th us rig h t f u l l y oc cu pyin g th e rig ht of way se rv es th e ge ne ral pu bl ic as a

co m m erci al en te rp ris e, di st in ct fro m th e av oc at io n of th e rai lro ad

, it

co ns ti tu te s a us e of th e rig ht of way eas em en t ot he r th a n fo r rai lro ad

pu rp os es , an d it is th eref

or e a se rv it ud e no t co nt em pl at ed in th e or ig in al

gr an t an d a bu rd en up on th e fee of whi ch th e ad ja c e n t o w n e r m ay rig ht fu ll y co m

pl ai n. It is ob vi ou s t he tra ns m is si on of in te ll ig en ce by

m ean s of el ect ric it y to al l t he wor ld who m ay be wil li ng to pa y fo r th e

se rv ic e is no t a rai lro ad us e, an d su ch se rv ic e is c e rta in ly no t

co nt em pl at ed wit hi n th e gr an t of th e rai lro ad rig ht of wa y, f o r it is

en ti rel y di sa ss oc ia te d t he refr om

.

-8

-Id

. Se e al so Eur ek a , 20 0 S.W .2 d a t 3 3 2 ( q uo ti ng th e fir st se nt en ce of th e ab ov e
bl oc k q uo ta ti on ).

In 19 66

, th e Su pr em e Co ur t of Mi ss ou ri ag a i n qu ot ed Ca pe Gir ar de au
Bell —t hi s ti m e, a 25 0- wor d pa ss ag e th at in cl ud es th e bl oc k qu ot at io n ab ov e. Ka ns as

Ci ty v. As hl

ey , 40 6 S.W .2d 58 4, 59 2 (Mo

. 19 66 ), qu ot in g Ca pe Gir ar de au Bel

l

, 11 4

S.W

. at 58 8. Th e Ash le y co ur t al so sa id th at Eur eka “ rel ie d up on ” th e Ca pe

Gir ar de au Bell qu ot at io n. Id

. Ca pe Gir ar de au Bell ’s ru le

, rep eat ed ly reaf fir m ed by

th e Su pr em e Co ur t o f Mi ss ou ri, g ov ern s t hi s ca se

.

Und er Ash le

y , Eur eka

, an d Ca

pe Gir ar de au Bell

, Sh o- Me’s eas em en ts do no t

au th or iz e Sh o- Me an d Tech ’s us e of th e fib er-o pt ic cab le to se rv e th e ge ne ral pu bl ic

as a co mm e r c i a l te le co m m un ic at io ns en te rp ris e di st in ct fro m Sh o- Me’s el ect ric it y
bu si ne ss

. Sh o- Me an d Tech ’s us e of th e la nd own ers ’ eas em en ts is in di st in gu is ha bl e
f r o m t h e rai lro ad an d te le gr ap h co m pa ny’ s us e of th e eas em en t di sc us se d in C a p e
Gir ar de au Bell

. In bo th cas es , a cab le can rig ht fu ll y oc cu py th e eas em en t to se rv e th e

pu r p o s e a u t h o riz ed in th e eas em en t. Bu t th at cab le can no t al so se rv e th e ge ne ral

pu bl ic fo r pu rp os es no t au th or iz ed by th e eas em en t. Tha t ad di ti on al us e—h ere,
Tech ’s us e fo r pu bl ic -s erv in g co m m erci al te le co m

m un ic at io ns un rel at ed to ele ct ric

tra ns m is si on —i s an ex pa nd ed us e of th e ki nd pr oh ib it ed by § 52 3.2 38 an d Ca rr ol l

Elec tr ic

.

Sh o- Me an d Tech in vo ke two ad di ti on al do ct rin es —“ sa m e ge ne ral ch arac te r”

an d “ un li m it ed reas o n a b l e u s e”— to jus ti fy th ei r us e. Fi rs t, th ey arg ue th at pu bl ic

te le co m m un ic at io ns us e was pe rm it te d be cau se “ th e own er of la nd su bjec t to a pu bl ic

eas em en t ha s no rig ht to in si st th at th e pu bl ic us e rem ai n pr eci se ly t he sa m e, an d if

th e or ig in al us e is ch a n g e d t o a n o th er of th e sa m e ge ne ral ch arac te r an d no ne w or

ot he r bu rd en s are im

po se d,

. . . th e own er is no t en ti tl ed to ad di ti on al co m pe ns at io n.”

Ri gg s v. Ci ty of Sp ri ng

fie ld

, 12 6 S.W. 2 d 1 1 4 4

, 11 49 (Mo

. ba nc 19 39 ). As a
th res ho ld m at te r, th ey ci te no au th or it y th a t Sh o- Me’s eas em en ts are “ pu bl ic

-9

-eas em en ts .” Bu t ev en as su m in g Rig gs ’s “ sa m e ge ne ral ch arac te r” tes t app li es he re,
it do es no t au th or iz e Sh o- Me an d Tech ’s us e. Rig gs in vo lv ed a ci ty’ s ap pr op ria ti on
of an eas em en t to us e a st ream fo r se wer pu rp os es

. Id

. at 11 48

. Alt ho ug h th e am ou nt

of se wag e di sc ha rg ed in to th e st ream va rie d ov er ti m e, th e ci ty’s u s e w a s al way s
wit hi n th e bo un ds of it s eas em en t. Se e id

. at 11 52

. Rig

gs su pp o r t s on ly t he no ti on
th at a pu bl ic eas em en t au th or iz es an in crea se d de gr ee of us e so lo ng a s i t i s o f t he

“s a me g e ne ral ch arac te r.” Sh o- Me an d Tech su gg es t th at Rig gs pe rm it s al l us e s ph y si cal ly si m il ar to th os e ex pl ic it ly au th or iz ed by th ei r eas em en ts

. Tha t su gg es ti on
is in co m pa ti bl e wit h Eur eka

, O

g g , a n d Ca rr ol l Elec tr ic —al l of whi ch pr oh ib it ed
ph y si cal ly sim il ar o r id en ti cal us es ser vi ng un au th or iz ed pu rp os es

.

S e c o n d

, S ho -Me an d Tech as se rt th at th ei r us e is au th or iz ed be cau se “ a n

eas eme n t g r a n t ed or res erv ed in ge ne ral te rm s wit ho ut an y li m it at io ns as to it s us e,
is on e of un li m it ed reas on ab le us e.” Mo

. Pub. Ser v. Co

. v. Ar ge nb ri gh t

, 45 7 S.W .2d

77 7, 78 3 (Mo

. 19 70 ); Ma as en v. Sha w , 13 3 S.W .3d 51 4, 51 8 (Mo

. App

. 20 04 ). Sh oMe can m ak e un li m it ed reas on ab le us e of th e eas em en ts

, so lo ng as each “ eas em en t’s

us e is li m it ed to th e pu rp os es fo r whi ch it was crea te d.” Ma as en , 13 3 S.W .3d at 51 9.

Se e al so Il li g v . Unio n El

ec. Co

. , 65 2 F .3d 97 1, 9 77 -7 8 (8t h Cir. 20 11 ) (ex pl ai ni ng
th at , un de r Mi ss ou ri law, an eas em en t can on ly be us ed fo r th e pu rp os e fo r whi ch it

was crea te d)

. Sh o- Me an d Tech a r e l i mite d to us in g th e eas em en ts fo r th e pu rp os e
of ele ct ric tra ns m is si on

.

Sh o- Me an d Tech cl ai m th ey are no t res tri ct ed by th e “ or ig in al pu rp os e” of th e

eas em en ts

, ci ti n g Hen le

y v. Co nt in en ta l Ca bl evi si on , 69 2 S.W .2d 82 5 (Mo

. App

. 19 85 ). Hen le

y he ld th at eas em en ts gr an te d in 19 22 to co ns tru ct an d op erat e “ li ne s fo r

te le ph on e an d el ect ric li gh t pu rp o s es ” au th or iz ed “ th e ad di ti on of a si ng le co ax ia l

cab le

. . . fo r th e pu rp os e of tra ns m it ti ng te le vi si on im ag es .” Id

. at 82 7- 28

. The co ur t

st at ed , “ The own er of an eas em en t m ay li cen s e or au th or iz e th ird pe rs on s to us e it s rig ht of way fo r pu rp os es no t in co ns is te nt wit h th e pr in ci pa l us e gr an te d.” Id

. at 82 8.

Not in g th at th e cab le di d no t ex ceed th e sc op e of th e in te nd ed an d au th or iz ed us e, it

-1 0-ex pl ai ne d, “ The ex pr es se d in te nt io n” of th e pl ai nt i f f s ’ p r ed eces so rs in gr an ti ng th e

eas em en ts “ was to ob ta in

. . . th e be n e f i ts of el ect ric po wer an d te le ph on ic

co m m un ic at io ns .” Id

. at 82 9. Po in ti ng ou t th at th e f u t u r e de ve lo pm en t of cab le

te le vi si on was un fo rs een whe n th e eas em en ts were gr an te d, th e co ur t de te rm in ed th at

“ th e in te nt io n of p l a i n ti ffs ’ pr ed eces so rs was th e acq ui si ti on an d co nt in ue d

m ai nt en an ce of av ai la bl e m ean s of br in gi ng el ect ric al po wer an d co m m un ic at io n in to

th e ho m es of th e su bd iv is io n.” Id

. Hen le y he ld th at th e cab le co m pa n y c ou ld us e

te le ph on e eas em en ts

, no t si m pl y be cau se su ch us e was “ reas on ab le ,” bu t be cau se
cab le te le vi si on was wit hi n th e eas em en ts ’ (b ro ad ly de fin ed ) or ig in al pu rp os e. Sh oMe’s eas em en ts are un li ke th os e in Hen le y an d ne arl y id en ti cal to th e Ca rr ol l Elec tr ic

eas em en ts

. The y do no t in di cat e an y in te nt io n to al lo w us e f o r pu bl ic -s erv in g

t e l eco m m un ic at io ns pu rp os es

. Se e Ma as en , 13 3 S.W .3d at 51 9 (“ Any do ub t

co nc ern in g an eas em en t’s sc op e sh ou ld be res ol ve d in fav or of th e se rv ie nt own er’s

free an d un tra m

m el ed us e of th e la nd .”). Sh o- Me an d Tech ’s us e fo r th os e pu rp os es

ex ceed s t he sco pe of t he eas em en ts

.

2.

Und er Mi ss ou ri la w, “ A tre sp as s is a ‘dire ct ph y si cal in te rfer en ce wit h th e

pe rs on or pr op ert y of an ot he r.’” Ha ns en v. Gar y Nau gl e Co ns t r. Co

. , 8 01 S.W .2d

71

, 74 (Mo

. ba nc 19 90 ), q u o t i n g M a w so n v. V

es s Bev er ag e Co

. , 17 3 S.W .2d 60 6,

61 3 (Mo

. App

. 19 43 ). “ [I]f an eas em en t ho ld er, whi le la wfu ll y on th e se rv ie nt la nd

,

ex ceed s hi s rig h t s u n de r th e eas em en t in ei th er th e m an ne r or ex te nt of hi s us e, he

be co m es a tre sp as se r to th e ex te nt of th e un au th or iz ed us e.” Br an so n W., In c. v. Ci ty of Br an so n , 98 0 S.W .2d 60 4, 60 7 (Mo

. App

. 19 98 ). Se e al so
, e.g

. , Gri de r v. Ting le

, 32 5 S.W .3d 43 7, 44 7 (Mo

. App

. 20 10 ); Ogg

, 14 2 S.W .3d a t 80 9; Ma as en , 13 3

S.W .3d at 52 0; Ma ci os v. Hen sl ey , 88 6 S.W .2d 74 9, 75 2- 53 (Mo

. App

. 19 94 ). Sh oMe an d Tech arg ue th at th ei r us e of th e eas em en ts fo r te le co m m un ic at io ns pu rp os es
di d no t ph y si cal ly in te rfer e wit h th e l a n d o w ne rs ’ pr op ert y an d th eref or e is no t a

-1 1-tre sp as s. The y sa y th at th e la nd own ers co m pl ai n on ly of in vi si bl e l i g h t pu ls es an d

can po in t t o n o p hysic al in va si on of t he ir p ro pe rty.

S h o- Me an d Tech m is s th e fact th at th e fib er-o pt ic cab le is it se lf on t h e

pr op ert y , an d whe n th ey ex c e e d th ei r rig ht s by us in g it fo r un au th or iz ed pu rp os es , th ei r us e of th e cab le be co m es a tre sp as s. Thi s is pr eci se ly wha t Ca pe Gir ar de au Bell

sa y s. W he re a te le gr ap h is us ed fo r pu rp os es bo th au th or iz ed an d no t au th or iz ed by

t h e e a s e m en t, th e own er of th e la nd bu rd en ed by th e eas em en t “ m ay rig ht fu ll y

co m pl ai n” of us es fo r pu rp os es no t au th or iz ed by th e eas em en t. Ca pe Gir ar de au

Bel l

, 14 4 S.W

. at 58 8. Sh o- Me an d Tech as k th is co ur t to ig no re th is la ng ua ge

. Bu t

th is co ur t’s ta sk is to pr ed ic t ho w th e Su pr em e Co ur t of Mi ss ou ri wou ld ru le

, an d th at

co ur t h as twi ce q uo te d Ca pe Gir ar de au Bell ’s l an gu ag e, su gg es ti ng it wou ld ad op t

it s a p p r o a c h. Se e As hl

ey , 40 6 S.W .2d at 59 2 (q uo ti ng an d rel y in g on fu ll pa ss ag e,
al be it fo r di ffer en t pu rp os es ); Eur ek a , 20 0 S.W .2d at 33 2 (q uo ti ng an d rel y in g on ke y

se nt en ce). Ca rr ol l Elec tr ic pr ov id es fu rth er evi de nc e of ho w th e Su pr em e Co ur t of

Mi ss o ur i wou ld ru le

. It ho ld s th at § 52 3.2 83 pr oh ib it s “ us e” of an el ect ric

tra ns m is si on eas em en t “ ot he r th an fo r el ect ric se rv ic e.” Ca rr ol l El ect ri c , 40 3 S.W .3d

at 64 6. Sh o- Me an d Tech ch arac te riz e C a r r o l l Elec tr ic as di sc us si ng ad di ti on al

cab le s, qu ot in g fro m a si ng le cro ss -ex am in at io n qu e s t i o n at tri al

. Bu t Ca rr ol l

Elec tr ic ’s an al y si s m ak es no m en ti on of ad di ti on al cab le s. Rat he r, it refe rs to “ us e”

of th e eas em en ts

. Id

. at 64 4- 46

.

Sh o- Me an d Tech al so rel y on an Eig ht h Ci rcu it cas e ho ld in g th at an ex ces si ve

us e ne arl y id en ti cal to Sh o- Me an d Tech ’s was no t tre sp as s un de r Ark an sa s la w. In t’l
Pap er Co

. v. MCI Wo rl

dC om Ne t w o r k Ser vs ., In c. , 44 2 F.3 d 63 3, 63 6 (8 th Ci r.

20 06 ). The re, a te le co m

m un ic at io ns co m

pa ny si m ul ta ne ou sl y us ed a rai lro ad rig ht

of -way fo r bo th in te rn al rai lro ad co m m un ic at io ns pu rp os es an d pu bl ic -s e r v i ng

co m m erci al te le co m

m un ic at io ns pu rp os es

. The co ur t sa id it sa w “ no reas on to

be li ev e th at Ark an sa s wou ld reco gn iz e a cl ai m fo r da m ag es fro m an in ta ng ib le

tre sp as s of li gh t si gn al s.” Id

. The de ci si on s of th e Mi ss ou ri co ur ts

, di sc us se d ab ov e,

-1 2-in di cat e Mi ss ou ri wou ld reco gn iz e a cl ai m fo r tre sp as s whe re a cab le in st al le d on an

eas em en t is us ed fo r pu rp os es no t au th or iz ed by the eas em en t. Thi s co ur t is bo un d

to fo ll ow th os e Mi ss ou ri co ur t de ci si on s, no t a pr io r Eig ht h Ci rcu it in te rp ret at io n of

Ark an sa s la w. The di st ric t co ur t’s gr an t of su m m ary jud gm en t to th e la nd own ers on
Sh o- Me a nd Tech ’s tre sp as s l ia bi li ty is af fir m ed

.

B.

The di st ric t co ur t fo un d tha t Sho- Me an d Tech ’s ex ces si ve us e of th e eas em en ts

m ak es th em li ab le fo r un jus t en ric hm e n t

. Th e pa rti es di sp ut e whe th er un jus t

en ric hm en t is an av ai la bl e rem ed y ag ai ns t en ti ti es wit h em in en t do m ai n po wer th at

ha ve us ed pr op ert y wit ho ut au th or iz at io n. The Mi ss ou ri C ou rt o f App eal s re cen tl y
th or ou gh ly di sc us se d th e “ bo dy of la w” “ ap pl ic ab le to th e su bs et of tre sp as s act io ns
fil ed ag ai ns t ut il it ie s ot he rwis e em p o w e r e d wit h th e rig ht of co nd em na ti on .”

St er be nz v. Ka ns as Cit

y Pow er & Lig ht Co

. , 33 3 S.W .3d 1, 7-1 0 (Mo . App . 20 10 ).

It s um m ari zed th e li m it ed rem ed ie s av ai la bl e ag ai ns t t ho se en ti ti es :

W he n an en ti ty ot he rwis e en ti tl ed to ex erci se th e po wer of e mi ne nt do m ai n ig no res th at po wer an d tre sp as se s up on pr iv at e la n d

, th e la nd own er ha s an el ect io n of rem ed ie s. The la nd own er ‘m ay pr oc eed by

way of in jun ct io n to res tra in th e in st al la ti on ; or he m ay su e in eject m en t;

or he m ay av ai l hi m se lf of [s ect io n 52 3.0 90 ]; or h e m ay m ai nt ai n a

co m m on law ac ti on for da m ag es .’

Id

. at 7- 8 (al te rat io n in or ig in al ) (fo ot no te om it te d) (ci ta ti on s o mi t t e d)

, qu ot in g

Bee ts chen v. Shel

l Pip e Line Co rp

. , 24 8 S.W .2d 66

, 70 (Mo

. App

. 19 52 ). If pr op ert y

own ers su e fo r da m ag es , th ey m ay su e f or tre sp as s or , al te rn at iv el y , fo r in ve rs e

co nd em na ti on

. Id

. at 8. St er be nz do es no t li st un jus t en ric hm en t as an av ai la bl e

rem ed y

.

-1 3-The la nd own ers s a y th at St er be nz ’s si le nc e on un jus t en ric hm en t is no t a

re jecti on

. Bu t St er be nz is no t jus t si le nt

. It sa y s th at la nd own ers ha ve “ an el ect io n
of rem ed ie s” an d l i s ts fo ur rem ed ie s. It m ak es li tt le se ns e to sa y a pl ai nt iff ha s an
el ect io n of fo ur rem ed ie s if th e pl ai nt iff can el ect a fif t h

. Th e l a n d own ers do no t

id en ti fy an y Mi ss ou ri c a s e s reco gn iz in g un jus t en ric hm en t as a rem ed y fo r

un au th or iz ed la nd us e. The cl os es t th ey co m e is a cas e whe re an em pl oyee ga ve hi s

em pl oyer an id ea fo r an in ve nt io n, whi ch th e em pl oyer th en us ed wit ho ut pa y in g hi m

. Dewey v. Am

. St

ai r Gli de Co rp

. , 55 7 S.W .2d 6 4 3

, 6 4 8

- 4 9 ( Mo

. App

. 19 77 ). Thi s
do es no t s ho w t ha t St er be nz ov erl oo ke d u nju st en ric hm en t as a rem ed y for tre sp as s

to real pro pe rty.

Two ot he r Mi ss ou ri au th or it ie s co rro bo rat e St er be nz

. Fi rs t, in Y ou ng v. Home

Tel

. Co

. , 2 0 1 S

. W

. 63 5 (Mo

. App

. 19 18 ), th e Mi ss ou ri Co ur t of App eal s reject ed

la nd own ers ’ at te m

pt to su e—“ ba se d up on a co nt ract im pl ie d by l aw”— a te le ph on e

co m pa ny th at in st al le d un au th or iz ed po le s. Id

. at 63 6. Y

ou ng he ld th at th is cl ai m was

no t al lo wed :

I t is cl ear whe re on e ta ke s an d oc cu pi es th e la nd of an ot he r a s a
tre sp as se r, th e la w do es no t im pl y a n a g r e em en t on th e pa rt of su ch

tre sp as se r to pa y fo r su ch us e an d oc cu pa ti on

. If it di d, t h e n a s u i t f or

us e an d oc cu pa ti on , ba se d m erel y up on su ch us e an d oc cu pa ti on , co ul d
be m ai nt ai ne d. Bu t, as st at ed

, t h e r u l e i n ou r st at e is th at su ch a su it

can no t be m ai nt ai ne d un le ss th e rel at io n of la nd lo rd an d te na nt

, ex pr es s

or im pl ie d, exi st s bet ween th e pa rti es

. In ot he r wor ds

, th ere m us t hav e be en a pr io r m

ut ua l ag reem en t ex is ti ng be twee n th e pa r t i e s o r th ei r
pr iv ie s to pa y fo r su ch us e an d oc cu pa ti on , el se a su it th eref or can no t be

m ai nt ai ne d.

I d

. at 63 7. The co ur t of ap pe al s as su m ed th e su it was “ no t on e fo r th e us e a n d

oc cu pa ti on of la nd ” di rect ly, bu t rat he r on e ba se d on an im pl ie d co nt ract

. It he ld th at

th e cas e was go ve rn ed no ne th el es s b y a st at ut e p ro vi di ng , “ A lan dl or d m ay reco ve r

a reas on ab le sa ti sf

act io n fo r th e us e an d oc cu pa ti on o f an y la nd s or te ne m en ts he ld

-1 4-by an y pe rs on un de r an ag reem en t no t m ad e by de ed .” Id

. at 63 6- 37

, qu ot in g § 78 86

RSMo (1 90 9)

. The Y

ou ng co ur t fo un d th at th e st at ut e li m it ed su it s fo r “ us e an d

oc cu pa ti on ” to si tu a t i o n s whe re a la nd lo rd -te na nt rel at io ns hi p ex is te d be twee n th e

pa rti es

. Id

. at 63 6. The sa m e la ng ua ge is st il l in th e Mi ss ou ri Rev is ed St at ut es , no w

co di fie d a t § 44 1.2 00

, an d pr es um ab ly st il l ba rs su it s ba se d up on “ us e an d

oc cu pa ti on ” in th e ab se nc e of a la nd lo rd -te na nt rel at io ns hi p. Y ou ng su gg es ts th at th e

Su pr em e Co ur t of Mi ss ou ri wou ld no t reco gn iz e an un jus t-e nr ic hm en t act io n fo r fai r

m ark et ren ta l va lu e ag ai ns t a tre sp as si ng en ti ty wit h em in en t do m ai n po wer, at le as t

in th e ab se nc e of a pr io r ag reem en t. Se e Y ou ng v. Sw. Bell Tel. Co.

, 3 S.W .2d 38 1,

38 4 (Mo

. 19 28 ) (s ay in g “ th e co rrec tn es s of [th e co ur t of ap pe al s’ Y ou ng ] r u l i n g is

well su pp o r t e d ” )

. Seco nd , § 52 8.2 83 sp eci fic al ly n ot es th at “ an act io n fo r tre sp as s

or ex pa nd ed us e” is av ai la bl e ag ai ns t RECs an d ut il it y co m pa ni es th at go be y on d th e

sc op e of th ei r eas em en ts

, m ak in g no m en ti on of un jus t en ric hm en t. § 52 8.2 83 .4

. The

di st ric t co ur t’s gr an t of su m m ary jud gm en t on un

jus t-e nr ic hm en t li ab il it y is rev ers ed

.

III.

Afte r th e di st ric t co ur t gr an te d s u mm a r y ju dg m en t on li ab il it y fo r bo th th e

tre sp as s an d un

jus t-e nr ic hm en t cl ai m s, th e la nd own ers so ug ht da m ag es on th e un jus ten ric hm en t cl ai m al on e. A jury award ed da m ag es on th at cl ai m , an d th e di st ric t co ur t

en te red jud gm en t fo r da m ag es on th at cl ai m

. Si nc e th is co ur t no w rev ers es th e gr an t

of su m m ary jud gm en t on un

jus t en ric hm en t, th e da m ag es award is va ca t e d

. Th is

co ur t n eed no t ad dr es s t he jury in st ru ct io ns or e vi de nt ia ry rul in gs

.

On rem an d, th e la nd own ers m ay c h o o se to pu rs ue da m ag es on th ei r tre sp as s
cl ai m

. Se e Ma lv in o v. Dell uni ver si ta

, 84 0 F.3 d 22 3, 23 3 (5 th Ci r. 20 16 ) (p erm it ti ng pl a i n ti ff who el ect ed RICO rem ed y th at was rev ers ed on ap pe al to pu rs ue co m m on
la w frau d re m ed y

on rem an d) ; Sha w v. Ra

ym on d , 1 96 S.W .3d 65 5, 6 62 (Mo . App

. 20 06 ) (“ W he n a p l a in ti ff

. . . d oe s no t ha ve ‘two rem ed ie s in po in t of fact ,’ th e fact

th at he so ug ht a rem ed y to whi ch he was no t en ti tl ed do es no t ba r hi m fro m pu rs ui ng

-1 5-a rem ed y to whi ch he is en ti tl ed .” (q uo ti ng Pem b e r t o n v. Lad ue Rea lt y & Co ns tr

. C o

. , 22 4 S.W .2d 38 3, 38 5 (Mo .19 49 ))). If th e la nd own ers m ak e th at ch oi ce, th e
di st ric t co ur t s ho ul d c on du ct fur th er p ro ceed in gs co ns is te nt wit h t hi s o pi ni on

.

IV.

Sh o- Me an d Tech ch al le ng e th e di st ric t co ur t’s de ci si on to cert ify th e cl as s of

la nd own ers

. Thi s co ur t rev ie ws th e di st ric t c ou rt’s cl as s cert ifi cat io n de ci si on fo r
ab us e of di sc ret io n. Eb er t v. Gener al Mi ll s, In c. , 82 3 F.3 d 47 2, 47 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 16 ).

Sh o- Me an d Tech arg ue th a t th is cl as s act io n is no t “ m an ag eab le ” be cau se it

wil l be di ffi cu lt to de te rm in e cl as s m e mb e r sh ip

. Se e Fed. R. Civ

. P. 23 (b)( 3) (D)
(ex pl ai ni ng th at

, fo r Ru le 23 (b )(3 ) cl as s act io ns , “ th e li ke ly di ffi cu lt ie s in m an ag in g

a cl as s act io n” are “ pe rti ne nt to ” pr ed om in an ce an d su pe rio rit y ). The di st ric t co ur t

ad dr es se d th is arg um en t at le ng th in it s or de r cert ifyin g th e cl as s, ex pl ai ni ng th at cl as s

m em be rs “ wil l fil e a cl ai m fo rm wit h a swo rn st at em en t id en ti fy in g th e pe rio d of th ei r

own ers hi p an d at ta ch in g a de ed .” Sh o- Me an d Tech do no t sp eci fy ho w th is pr oc es s
is un m an ag eab le

, m

uc h le ss ho w it is so un m an ag eab le th at th e di st ric t co ur t ab us ed

it s d is cret io n i n c ert ifyin g t he cla ss

.

Sh o- Me an d Tech as s e r t th at th ey co ul d rai se an affi rm at iv e
de fen se —l an do w n e r co ns en t to th ei r cab le us e—t ha t sh ou ld be in di vi du al ly

in ve st ig at ed an d a d

ju d ic at ed

, m ak in g cl as s cert ifi cat io n in ap pr op ria te

. “ W hi le th e

ex is te nc e of in di vi du al de fen se s m ay be im po rta nt in a co ur t’s de ci si on to cert ify a
cl as s, th e rel ev an ce of su ch de fen se s m us t be su bjec te d to th e sa m e rig or ou s in qu iry

as pl ai nt iff

s’ cl a i ms .” In re Zurn Pex Plum bi ng Pro d. Lia b. Lit ig

. , 64 4 F.3 d 60 4,

61 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ) (ci ta t i o n o mi t t ed ). Sh o- Me an d Tech po in t to no ev id en ce th at

ev en on e cl as s m em

be r co ns en te d to th ei r cab le us e. The ir un su pp or te d al le ga ti on of

in di vi du al co ns en t qu es ti on s do es no t un de rcu t th e di st ric t co ur t’s fin di ng th at

co m m on qu es ti on s p red om in at e o ve r in di vi du al on es

.

-1 6-Fi na ll y , Sh o- Me an d Tech co nt en d th at th e ne ed fo r in di vi du al iz ed da m ag es

cal cu la ti on s pr oh ib it s cl as s cert ifi c a t i o n. Si nc e th is co ur t ha s va cat ed th e da m ag es
award

, th e na t u r e of a hypo th et ic al fu tu re da m ag es award do es no t ren de r cl as s

cert ifi cat io n im

pr op er. Se e Ty s on Fo od s, In c. v. Bo ua

ph ak eo , 13 6 S. Ct

. 10 36

, 10 49 -5 0 (2 01 6) (d ecl i ni ng to de cert ify cl as s on ba si s of da m ag es is su es no t y et

res ol ve d by di st ric t co ur t). The di st ric t co ur t di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n in cert ifyin g
th e cl as s.

* * * * * * *

Th e ju dg m en t is affi rm ed in pa rt, rev ers ed in pa rt, va cat ed in pa rt, a n d

rem an de d fo r pr oc eed in gs co ns is te nt wit h t hi s o pi ni on

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-1 7-