Good River Farms, LP v. TXI Operations, LP

• Court: District Court, W.D. Texas
• Decided: July 29, 2019
• Docket: 1:17-cv-01117
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION

GOOD RIVER FARMS, LP, § § Plaintiff, § § v. § 1:17-CV-1117-RP § TXI OPERATIONS, LP and MARTIN § MARIETTA MATERIALS, INC., § § Defendants. §

ORDER Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Appraisal Report. (Dkt. 34). Plaintiff Good River Farms, LP (“Good River Farms”), which alleges that Defendants’ neighboring reservoir failed and flooded Good River Farms’ pecan farm, hired an appraiser, W.F. Smith (“Smith”), to assess the diminution in the farm’s value. (Am. Compl., Dkt. 7, at 3–4; Mot., Dkt. 34, at 1). Defendants now ask the Court to strike Smith’s expert report because his opinions are irrelevant. (Mot., Dkt. 34, at 1). When Good River Farms amended its complaint, it removed a claim for permanent market value damages. (Id. at 1–2; Resp., Dkt. 36, at 2). Smith’s report seeks to appraise the value of the farm before and after it was flooded. (Appraisal, Dkt. 34-1, at 2). His appraisal factors in “permanent damage” due to Good River Farms’ duty to disclose the flood to future buyers, as well as the “fact [that] the property is potentially subject to excessive inundation events in the future caused by the dam” owned by Defendants. (Id.). The appraisal’s estimate of the permanent damages to the farm carries significant uncertainty, with estimates varying by $700,000. (Id. at 3). Defendants argue that an appraisal based on permanent market-value diminution is irrelevant now that Good River Farms has dropped its claim for permanent market-value damages and ask that Smith’s report be stricken so that Defendants may be spared the expense of a rebuttal expert. (Mot., Dkt. 34, at 2–3). Good River Farms agrees that it dismissed its claim for permanent market-value damages but respond that Smith’s report 1s relevant nonetheless. (Resp., Dkt. 36). Good River Farms still seeks a permanent injunction, (Am. Compl, Dkt. 7, at 11), for which they will need to prove the existence of an imminent threat and irreparable injury. Ji Rutherford Investments, Inc. v. Terramar Beach Cmty. Ass'n, 25 S.W.3d 845, 849 (Lex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, pet. dented). The Court agrees that Mr. Smith’s report 1s relevant to the appropriateness of injunctive relief. [fit 1s true that Defendants’ dam creates a risk of future flood damage that will drive down the value of Good River Farms’ property, and if the amount of that damage ts uncertain, then that would be a relevant to whether Good River Farms is threatened with irreparable injury. Defendants’ argument to the contrary does not convince the Court otherwise. Defendants argue that the appraisal actually wudermines Good River Farms’ case for an injunction because Smith’s damages estimate suggests that any future harm is compensable by damages. (Reply, Dkt. 37, 2). In taking that position, however, Defendants concede the appraisal’s relevance, as a fact that undermines a legal argument is necessarily a relevant fact, even if it 1s not the sort of relevant fact Good River Farms should want found. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Strike PlaintifPs Appraisal Report, (Dkt. 34), is DENIED. The parties shall confer about an appropriate extension for any deadlines affected by this order and seek leave for any such extension, agreed or otherwise.

SIGNED 0n July 29, 2019. Catr—— ROBERT PITMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE