Donald Schultz v. Southeast Supply Header

FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
APRIL 29, 2010
JOHN LEY
CLERK
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
_____________
No. 09-15651
Non-Argument Panel
_____________
D.C. Docket No. 09-00055-CV-1-KD-C
DONALD SCHULTZ,
ERIN SCHULTZ,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
versus
SOUTHEAST SUPPLY HEADER, LLC,
Defendant-Appellee.
____________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Alabama
____________
(April 29, 2010)
Before EDMONDSON, BIRCH and HILL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

-- 1 of 2 --

Appellants Donald Schultz and Erin Schultz (collectively, the Schultzes)
filed suit against Southeast Supply Header, LLC (SESH), under Alabama state
law, for negligence, nuisance, trespass and inverse condemnation. The Schultzes
claimed that their property was damaged as a result of SESH’s construction of a
pipeline across their property in Mobile County, Alabama.
SESH filed a motion for summary judgment based upon the Advance
Damage Release (Release) executed by the Schultzes with SESH for $10,900.00.
The Release was executed “in full payment and settlement of all claims and
damages of every kind whatsoever, present and future, to interests of [the
Schultzes] arising from or related to the surveying, preparation, laying and
construction of a pipeline and appurtenances under, upon, and across [the
Schultzes’] land . . . .”
The district court granted SESH’s motion for summary judgment, finding
that, under Alabama law, the Release unambiguously included “all” “present and
future” damages resulting from the construction of SESH’s natural gas pipeline
across the Schultzes’ land. We agree.
We have thoroughly reviewed the record in this case and the well-reasoned
opinion of the district court. Finding no error, the judgment is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
2

-- 2 of 2 --