UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-1062
APPALACHIAN POWER COMPANY,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
WILLIAM W. NISSEN, II; LORA J. NISSEN,
Defendants - Appellants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Norman K. Moon, Senior District
Judge. (7:14-cv-00535-NKM-RSB)
Submitted: December 15, 2016 Decided: December 19, 2016
Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Pavlina B. Dirom, J. Frederick Watson, CASKIE & FROST, Lynchburg,
Virginia, for Appellants. Matthew P. Pritts, Frank K. Friedman,
C. Carter Lee, WOODS ROGERS, PLC, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
William W. Nissen, II, and Lora J. Nissen appeal the district
court’s orders denying their motion to dismiss for lack of subject-
matter jurisdiction and granting Appalachian Power Co.’s (APCO)
motion for summary judgment. Because we conclude that the district
court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, we vacate the judgment
of the district court and remand.
Our recent decision in Pressl v. Appalachian Power Co., ___
F.3d ___, No. 15-2348, 2016 WL 6833339 (4th Cir. Nov. 21, 2016),
which concerned identical law and nearly identical facts, and for
which this appeal was placed in abeyance, governs the outcome of
this case. In Pressl, the Pressls sought a declaratory judgment
in state court allowing them to build a dock on their land subject
to APCO’s flowage easement for the Smith Mountain hydroelectric
project. Id. at *1. APCO removed the action, and the Pressls
sought to remand, which the district court denied. Id. We held
that the district court did not have subject-matter jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (2012) or 16 U.S.C. § 825p (2012) because
interpretation of APCO’s flowage easement does not necessarily
raise any federal question. Id. at *3-6.
Here, the Nissens, who also seek to build a dock on Smith
Mountain Lake, make the same arguments as the Pressls regarding
APCO’s flowage easement on their land, which appears to be nearly
identical to the easement APCO has on the Pressls’ land. Because
2
under Pressl, the district court did not have subject-matter
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 or 16 U.S.C. § 825p, we vacate
the judgment of the district court and remand. We dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before this court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
VACATED AND REMANDED
3