Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
D. Minn.Procedural orderFiled Feb. 12, 2025

Northern Natural Gas Co. v. Easement and Right-of-Way Across 33.523 acres more…

Full caption

Northern Natural Gas Co. v. Easement and Right-of-Way Across 33.523 acres more or less, located in Lot 1, Block 1 Steeple View 2d Addition, Scott County, Minnesota

Judge
John Tunheim
Docket
0:23-cv-01906
Court
U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
Pages
5
Civil ProcedureFee Petition
In one sentence

In Northern Natural Gas v. Easement and Right-of-Way, Judge Tunheim’s magistrate judge recommended granting in part and denying in part Barney’s motion.

Who this affects

Barney Financial, LLC would be dismissed from the action under the recommendation, and each party would bear its own fees and costs; the recommendation does not award Barney attorney fees.

What happened

Northern Natural Gas Co. v. Easement and Right-of-Way concerns Northern’s request to condemn an easement, determine compensation, and obtain title to and possession of the easement. Northern had already bought the property at a sheriff’s sale after a state-court foreclosure proceeding.

The parties agreed that Barney Financial, LLC no longer had any right, title, or interest in the property because the sale had been confirmed. Barney asked to be dismissed and requested attorney fees and expenses for bringing its motion.

Magistrate Judge Shannon G. Elkins, acting on a referral from Judge John R. Tunheim, recommended granting in part and denying in part Barney’s motion: dismissing Barney from the case and requiring each party to pay its own fees and costs. The recommendation was not a final order or judgment and could be challenged through written objections.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Northern Natural Gas Co. v. Easement and Right-of-Way Across 33.523 acres more… · No. 0:23-cv-01906
Judge
John Tunheim
Date
Feb. 12, 2025

Background

Northern Natural Gas Co. filed this case seeking condemnation of an easement and right-of-way, an award of just compensation, and title to and possession of the easements. Northern stated that it had paid Aaron Le $150,000 in 2021 for an easement to build two town border stations. The stations were built and had been operating since 2021.

The property was also involved in a state-court foreclosure proceeding. Barney Financial, LLC obtained a judgment in that proceeding on June 26, 2024. Northern later purchased the property at a sheriff’s sale on November 19, 2024, and the state court confirmed the sale on December 17, 2024. The parties agreed that the confirmed sale eliminated Barney’s right, title, and interest in the property.

Motion and analysis

Barney moved to dismiss the case as to Barney and requested attorney fees and expenses. The report explains that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21 allows a court to add or remove a party to ensure that necessary parties are included and to avoid unnecessarily complicating the case.

Because Barney no longer had an interest in the property, the court concluded that Barney could not prevent or remedy any injury related to Northern’s use of the easement. The court therefore recommended dismissing Barney from the action.

The court separately considered Barney’s request for fees. It explained that attorney fees may be awarded under a court’s inherent authority when the party to be sanctioned has acted in bad faith. The court found that neither party or counsel had demonstrated bad faith. It therefore recommended that fees and costs not be awarded and that each party bear its own fees and costs.

Recommendation and next steps

Magistrate Judge Shannon G. Elkins, on referral from United States District Judge John R. Tunheim, recommended that Barney Financial, LLC’s motion be granted in part and denied in part: Barney should be dismissed from the action, and each party should bear its own fees and costs.

The document is a Report and Recommendation, not an order or judgment of the District Court, and it is not directly appealable to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The opinion states that a party may file specific written objections within 14 days after being served with the recommendation.

The authoritative version

Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.