FLORIDA GAS TRANSMISSION COMPANY, LLC

v.

1.603 ACRES OF LAND IN COLUMBIA COUNTY, FLORIDA

This cause is before the Court on Plaintiff Florida Gas Transmission Company, LLC’s (FGT’s) Amended Motion for Final Summary Default Judgment as to Tract FL-COLU-067.00 and Memorandum of Law in Support (Doc. 58, Amended Motion), filed on May 13, 2021. FGT seeks the entry of default judgment against the Defendant-Owners and interested parties who have defaulted. No Defendant has filed an answer, appeared, or otherwise presented any claims or defenses in this case. Upon review, the Court concludes that the Amended Motion is due to be granted.

I. Background

On March 19, 2020, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) granted FGT a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (“FERC Certificate”), which authorizes FGT to build, operate, and maintain the Putnam Expansion Project. (Doc. 1-5, FERC Certificate). The Putnam Expansion Project mainly consists of two natural gas pipeline “loops”: (1) a “West Loop,” which is about 13.7 miles of a 30-inch diameter pipeline running between Columbia County, Florida, and Union County, Florida, and (2) an “East Loop,” which is about 7.0 miles of a 30-inch diameter pipeline running between Clay County, Florida, and Putnam County, Florida. The Project will supply natural gas to

Seminole Electric Cooperative’s new gas-fired generating unit, which is replacing an older coal-fired generating unit. To construct the Project in accordance with the FERC Certificate, FGT must acquire certain easements located within the jurisdiction of this Court. As part of the certification process,

FGT submitted, and FERC approved, alignment sheets showing the final location of the Project. (Doc. 8, Declaration of Elizabeth Porter, ¶ 9). FGT prepared the subject easements described in Composite Exhibit² to the Complaint (Doc. 1-3, Comp. Ex. 2) to conform to the FERC-approved alignment sheets (Porter Decl. ¶ 10). In March 2021, FGT filed a complaint to condemn a temporary easement on the instant tract(s) under the Natural Gas Act, 15 U.S.C. § 717f(h). (Doc. 1, Complaint). FGT sued the land at issue, as well as the fee owners, a judgment creditor (Ford Motor Credit Company), and Unknown Owners, if any. FGT concurrently filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment to establish its right to condemn the subject easement(s) (Doc. 4) and a Motion for Preliminary Injunction to obtain immediate possession of the property (Doc. 5). On July¹, 2021, the Court granted FGT’s Motion for Partial Summary

Judgment and Motion for Preliminary Injunction. (Doc. 62, Order). The July¹, 2021 Order established that FGT has the right to condemn the subject easement(s) under the Natural Gas Act, as well as the right to take immediate possession of the property. As security for the preliminary injunction, FGT deposited $3,800.00, or twice the appraised value of the property, into the Court’s Registry. (Doc. 63, Registry Monies). The only outstanding issue is how much compensation FGT owes for the easement(s). FGT attaches to the Amended Motion a declaration by Chad

Durrance, a licensed real estate appraiser with over 30 years’ experience. (Doc. 58-1, Durrance Decl.). Mr. Durrance states, under penalty of perjury, that he appraised the value of the temporary easement and determined the easement to be worth $1,900. Id. ¶¶ 6–8. Nothing in the record contradicts this valuation.

Between March 10, 2021 and March 23, 2021, FGT served the following defendants: Ford Motor Credit Company (Doc. 11), Veronica Flowers (Doc. 12), Warren Hollinger (Doc. 13), Roshanda Gordon (Doc. 15), Leo Gordon, Jr. (Doc. 17), Andrew English (Doc. 18), Augustine Blount (Doc. 19), Freemon Newton, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Lila Gordon Newton (Doc. 22), and

Toynetta Jones (Doc. 20). Amended Motion at 5–6, ¶¶ 9–17. On April 9, 2021, FGT perfected service by publication on the remaining defendants under Rule 71.1(d)(3)(B), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Rule(s)”), those defendants being: Unknown Owners and Beneficiaries of the Estate of Dessie L. Gordon

Alexander, Harold Gordon, Unknown Heirs and Beneficiaries of the Estate of Nathaniel Gordon, Craig Blount, Everlina Gordon Reed, Christine Gordon Surles, Pearline Gordon Ferguson, Shantell Hollinger, Edward Beasley, Unknown Heirs and Beneficiaries of the Estate of Roosevelt Gordon, Francine

Gordon, Sherman Vincent as sole heir of the Estate of Elouise Gordon Young, Corine Gordon Wilson, Mary Jones, and Unknown Owners, if any. (Doc. 38 & Doc. 38-1, Certificate of Proof of Service by Publication); Amended Motion at 6– 7, ¶ 18. FGT filed affidavits in compliance with its obligations under the

Servicemembers’ Civil Relief Act (SCRA), 50 U.S.C. § 3901, et seq. (Docs. 66, 67, 68).1

II. Law

“When a party against whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought has failed to plead or otherwise defend, and that failure is shown by affidavit or otherwise, the clerk must enter the party’s default.” Rule 55(a). Following the entry of a clerk’s default, the Court may enter a default judgment against a properly served defendant who has failed to appear or otherwise defend. Rule 55(b)(2); see also DirecTV, Inc. v. Griffin, 290 F. Supp. 2d 1340, 1343 (M.D. Fla. 2003). “The defendant, by his default, admits the plaintiff’s well-pleaded allegations of fact, is concluded on those facts by the judgment, and is barred value and is subject to apportionment, the Court finds it unnecessary to require FGT to post a bond. from contesting on appeal the facts thus established.” Nishimatsu Const. Co. v. Houston Nat. Bank, 515 F. 2d 1200, 1206 (5th Cir. 1975).2 But “a defendant’s default does not in itself warrant the court in entering a default judgment.” Id. Instead, “[e]ntry of default judgment is only warranted when there is ‘a sufficient basis in the pleadings for the judgment entered.’” Surtain v. Hamlin Terrace Found., 789 F. 3d 1239, 1245 (11th Cir. 2015) (quoting Nishimatsu, 515

F. 2d at 1206); see also Tyco Fire & Sec., LLC v. Alcocer, 218 F. App’x 860, 863 (11th Cir. 2007). “Conceptually, then, a motion for default judgment is like a reverse motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.” Surtain, 789 F. 3d at 1245. That means “a court looks to see whether the complaint contains sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)). The plaintiff meets that standard when the complaint “pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference” that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. Id.

III. Analysis

Under Rule 71.1, “the failure to so serve an answer constitutes consent to the taking and to the court’s authority to proceed with the action to fix the compensation.” Rule 71.1(d)(2)(A)(vi). Here, FGT served each Defendant

The Court previously granted FGT immediate possession of the subject easement(s), thus concluding the issue of whether FGT has the right to condemn the property. (Doc. 62). Indeed, FGT alleged in its Complaint, and showed through affidavits and exhibits (Porter Decl.; Porter Decl. Ex. A), that (1) it holds a FERC Certificate authorizing the Putnam Expansion Project, (2) the subject easements are necessary for the Project, and (3) FGT could not acquire the easements by contract. See Transcon. Gas Pipe Line Co., LLC v. 6.04 Acres of Land, 910 F. 3d 1130, 1154 (11th Cir. 2018) (setting forth the elements that the holder of a FERC Certificate must show to condemn property under the Natural Gas Act). Thus, the only remaining issue is that of just compensation. “The burden of establishing the value of condemned land lies with [the landowner].”

Columbia Gas Transmission Corp. v. Rodriguez, 551 F. Supp. 2d 460, 462 (W.D. Va. 2008) (citing United States v. Powelson, 319 U.S. 266, 273–74 (1943)). “‘Market value,’ rather than the value to the condemnor or the owner, is the proper measure of just compensation.” Id. (citing United States v. Petty Motor

Co., 327 U.S. 372, 377–78 (1946)); accord Dep’t of Transp. of State of Fla. v. Nalven, 455 So. 2d 301, 307 (Fla. 1984) (“In most cases it will be necessary and sufficient to full compensation that the award constitute the fair market value of the property.” (citations omitted)).³

The undersigned determines that FGT is entitled to a default judgment against all Defendants. In support of the Amended Motion for Default Judgment, FGT submits the affidavit of Chad Durrance, an experienced certified real estate appraiser. See Durrance Decl. Mr. Durrance states, under penalty of perjury, that he is familiar with the subject tract and that he

for purposes of this Order, the subject easement is worth $1,900. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED: 1. Plaintiff FGT’s Amended Motion for Final Summary Default Judgment as to Tract FL-COLU-067.00 and Memorandum of Law in Support (Doc.

58) is GRANTED as stated below. 2. The amount of just compensation owed is $1,900.00. Because FGT has already deposited $3,800.00 into the Court’s Registry, the Clerk will remit to FGT $1,900.00 plus half the accrued interest. The Clerk will keep the

remaining funds in an interest-bearing account and assess the administrative registry fee authorized by the Judicial Conference of the United States. Under 28 U.S.C. § 2042, such funds will remain available in the Court’s Registry for at least five years. Any funds that remain

unclaimed after such time will be deposited with the United States Treasury in the name and to the credit of the United States. After that, “[a]ny claimant entitled to any such money may, on petition to the court and upon notice to the United States attorney and full proof of the right thereto, obtain an order directing payment to him.” 28 U.S.C. § 2042. 3. The Court reserves jurisdiction to address any claim to funds that are deposited in the Court’s Registry. 4. The Clerk shall enter a Final Default Judgment providing that ownership and title of the easement rights related to Parcel FL-COLU-067.00, as defined in the Notice of Condemnation (Doc. 2), will vest in Florida Gas Transmission Company. The Clerk shall close the case. DONE AND ORDERED in Jacksonville, Florida this 28th day of January, 2022.

United States District Judge le 19 Copies to: The Honorable Brian J. Davis Counsel and parties of record