Handy Land & Timber, LLLP v. Transcontinental Gas Pile Line Company, LLC

Case: 17-12322 Date Filed: 03/01/2019 Page: 1 of 5
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 17-12322
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 3:17-cv-00041-ELR
HANDY LAND & TIMBER, LLLP,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
TRANCONTINENTAL GAS PIPE LINE COMPANY, LLC,
Defendant - Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
________________________
(March 1, 2019)
Case: 17-12322 Date Filed: 03/01/2019 Page: 2 of 5
Before WILSON and JORDAN, Circuit Judges, and GRAHAM, ∗ District Judge.
PER CURIAM:
Handy Land & Timber, LLLP (Handy Land) sued Transcontinental Gas Pipe
Line Company, LLC (Transco) in Georgia state court, alleging state tort claims, for
Transco’s removal and sale of trees from an easement on Handy Land’s property.
Handy Land also sought a temporary restraining order, which the district court
denied. Transco removed the action to federal court and moved to dismiss the
case. The district court denied Handy Land’s motion to remand and granted
Transco’s motion to dismiss. After the benefit of oral argument, we affirm.
I.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) issued a certificate
(FERC Certificate) approving Transco’s construction of a natural gas pipeline
extension under the Natural Gas Act. 15 U.S.C. § 717f. Transco initiated
condemnation proceedings in federal court to acquire easements along the pipeline
route, which included Handy Land’s property, and obtained a preliminary
injunction granting access to the property under its FERC Certificate.1
Transco removed trees within its easement on Handy Land’s property and
sold the timber for profit. Handy Land filed suit against Transco in Georgia state
∗Honorable James L. Graham, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Ohio,
sitting by designation.
1
These condemnation proceedings are still ongoing.
2
Case: 17-12322 Date Filed: 03/01/2019 Page: 3 of 5
court, claiming trespass to chattels, money had and received, and trover. Handy
Land sought (1) to enjoin the removal and sale of trees, or alternatively, recover
damages, and (2) a temporary restraining order (TRO) to stop Transco’s removal
of trees. Transco removed the action to federal court, and Handy Land moved to
remand the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; the district court denied
Handy Land’s motion.
Transco filed a motion to dismiss Handy Land’s suit. Handy Land did not
file a response. The district court denied Handy Land’s motion for a TRO and
granted Transco’s motion to dismiss. Handy Land now appeals, challenging (1)
the district court’s subject matter jurisdiction over its claims, (2) the court’s denial
of its TRO motion, and (3) the court’s grant of Transco’s motion to dismiss.
II.
“We review de novo a district court’s denial of a motion to remand a state-
court action because it implicates subject-matter jurisdiction.” Escobar v.
Celebration Cruise Operator, Inc., 805 F.3d 1279, 1283 (11th Cir. 2015).
District courts have jurisdiction over civil actions arising under federal law
when an asserted state law claim necessarily raises a substantial and important
federal issue. Gunn v. Minton, 568 U.S. 251, 257–58 (2013). If a plaintiff’s right
to relief “necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal law,
federal question jurisdiction may . . . attach to the state-law claim.” Hill v.
3
Case: 17-12322 Date Filed: 03/01/2019 Page: 4 of 5
BellSouth Telecomms., Inc., 364 F.3d 1308, 1314 (11th Cir. 2004). Substantial
federal question jurisdiction exists when the issue is (1) necessarily raised, (2)
actually disputed, (3) substantial, and (4) capable of resolution in federal court
without disrupting the congressionally-approved balance between federal and state
courts. Gunn, 568 U.S. at 258.
A federal court granted Transco authority to enter Handy Land’s property
via an easement circumscribed by Transco’s FERC Certificate. To recover on its
state tort claims, Handy Land must demonstrate that Transco wrongfully removed
trees from the easement—which would require Handy Land to show that the FERC
Certificate did not authorize removal. A court deciding Handy Land’s claims
“must necessarily interpret” the language of the federally-granted FERC Certificate
that defines the scope of Transco’s authority. Turbeville v. Fin. Indus. Regulatory
Auth., 874 F.3d 1268, 1275 (11th Cir. 2017).
This question of law requires an evaluation of federally-granted authority
and clearly implicates federal interests. Allowing a federal court to answer this
question will ensure that a state court is not burdened with adjudicating damages
claims that are already part of a pending federal condemnation action, avoiding the
risk of inconsistent awards in state and federal courts. The district court did not err
in exercising substantial federal question jurisdiction over Handy Land’s claims.
III.
4
Case: 17-12322 Date Filed: 03/01/2019 Page: 5 of 5
We review a district court’s interpretation of its local rules for abuse of
discretion. Fils v. City of Aventura, 647 F.3d 1272, 1282 (11th Cir. 2011). Under
Local Rule 7.1(B) of the Northern District of Georgia, failure to respond to a
motion within fourteen days after service “shall indicate that there is no opposition
to the motion.” The district court granted Transco’s motion to dismiss because
Handy Land failed to respond under Local Rule 7.1(B), but also discussed the
merits of several of Handy Land’s claims, noting that it would grant dismissal “for
the well-stated reasons in [Transco’s] motion.” This was not an abuse of
discretion. Moreover, Handy Land has failed to brief any merits-related grounds
for dismissal on appeal.
IV.
Appellate courts may only review denial of a TRO motion under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1292(a)(1) when the appellant disproves the general presumption that no
irreparable harm exists and shows that immediate appeal is necessary. Ingram v.
Ault, 50 F.3d 898, 899–900 (11th Cir. 1995). We lack jurisdiction here because
Handy Land has failed to show irreparable harm or need for immediate appeal.
AFFIRMED.
5