Summary
The Fifth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the Sabine River Authorities in a Fifth Amendment takings action brought by landowners whose properties flooded after the Toledo Bend Dam opened spillways during a severe storm. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by striking untimely expert affidavits. It further held that the plaintiffs failed to present sufficient evidence creating a genuine dispute of material fact regarding causation, an essential element of their temporary-flooding takings claim.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the district court abused its discretion by striking the plaintiffs' untimely expert affidavits and denying reconsideration.
- Whether the plaintiffs presented sufficient evidence to create a genuine dispute of material fact that operation of the Toledo Bend Dam caused additional flooding, an essential element of their Fifth Amendment takings claim.
Holdings
- The district court did not abuse its discretion in striking the Purcell and Knack affidavits because they violated the scheduling order and an unobjected-to order striking the same evidence, and their late reassertion would prejudice the defendants.
- Causation is a necessary prerequisite to a Takings Clause claim arising from government-induced flooding, and the plaintiffs failed to create a genuine dispute of material fact that operation of the Toledo Bend Dam caused additional flooding.
Key quotations
“In other words, the lack of sufficient evidence of causation is “more than sufficient to dispose” of a takings claim.” (9)
“The Plaintiffs have failed to show a genuine dispute of material fact as to causation, an essential element of their takings claim.” (14)
Factual background
During an intense March 2016 storm, the Toledo Bend Reservoir received rainfall producing inflows characterized as exceeding the equivalent of a 500-year flood. To prevent overtopping and possible failure of the Toledo Bend Dam, the defendant Authorities opened all nine operational spillways, releasing water into the Sabine River; downstream flooding damaged the property of more than 700 landowners. The plaintiffs' admissible expert evidence relied substantially on an excluded graduate thesis model and historical discharge data, but did not adequately establish what flooding would have occurred without the dam.
Procedural history
More than 700 landowners sued the two Sabine River Authorities under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that flooding caused by operation of the Toledo Bend Dam constituted a taking. The district court denied SRA-L's sovereign-immunity motion, and the Fifth Circuit affirmed that denial in an earlier appeal. During discovery, the district court struck two untimely expert affidavits, and the plaintiffs did not object. The district court later struck the affidavits again and granted the Authorities summary judgment, concluding that the plaintiffs lacked sufficient evidence of a taking and had not created a genuine dispute concerning the necessity defense. The Fifth Circuit affirmed on the exclusion issue and on the independent ground that the plaintiffs lacked sufficient evidence of causation, without reaching necessity.