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

Background

Northern Natural Gas Company sued to acquire an easement and right-of-way across 33.523 acres in Scott County, Minnesota. An easement is a legal right to use another party’s property for a particular purpose. Northern sought rights of entry and exit across the land to operate and maintain two town border stations that it completed in 2021. The stations reduce natural-gas pressure before delivering gas to facilities serving Elko New Market, Minnesota, and the surrounding area.

Northern stated that it held a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission certificate of public convenience and necessity. Under the Natural Gas Act, that type of certificate can authorize a natural-gas company to acquire property through condemnation, meaning a court-approved taking of property for a permitted public use. Northern alleged that it could not obtain the easements by agreement because a subordination agreement was not reached with an allegedly senior mortgagee, which had begun foreclosure proceedings on the land.

Northern moved for partial summary judgment and immediate use and possession before the amount of compensation was determined. Each defendant was served, but none answered the complaint or opposed the motion.

Court’s analysis

The court applied the summary-judgment standard, which requires judgment when there is no genuine dispute about a fact that could affect the outcome and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law.

The court found no dispute that Northern had a valid federal certificate, had been unable to obtain the property by contract, and needed the easements. It also found that Northern had complied with the federal rule governing condemnation proceedings. The court therefore concluded that Northern was entitled as a matter of law to acquire the subject easements.

For immediate use and possession before compensation, the court applied the four factors used for preliminary-injunction requests: irreparable harm, the balance of harms, the likelihood of success, and the public interest. The court found that Northern faced irreparable harm because alteration or removal of the stations could cause thousands of customers to lose natural-gas service. It found that the balance of harms favored Northern because the defendants could receive monetary compensation. The court also found that Northern was likely to succeed and that the public interest favored immediate possession because interference with the stations could affect thousands of consumers and create a dangerous situation.

Ruling

Judge John R. Tunheim granted Northern’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Immediate Use and Possession. The order granted Northern immediate use and possession of the subject easements shown in Exhibit A to the complaint. Before using or possessing the easements, Northern had to post $5,000 in security with the court to ensure that the defendants were properly compensated. The order stated that the security amount was not a determination of the property’s value.