[PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________

No. 18-11836 ________________________

D.C. Docket No. 5:16-cv-00178-JSM-PRL

SABAL TRAIL TRANSMISSION, LLC,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

3.921 ACRES OF LAND IN LAKE COUNTY FLORIDA, SUNDERMAN GROVES, INC, UNKNOWN OWNERS, IF ANY,

Defendants - Appellees.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida ________________________

(January 22, 2020) Case: 18-11836 Date Filed: 01/22/2020 Page: 2 of 23

Before WILLIAM PRYOR and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges, and ROBRENO,* District Judge. JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judge:

The federal Natural Gas Act (“NGA”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 717-717z, allows natural gas companies to acquire through eminent domain private property on which to construct and operate natural gas pipelines. See 15 U.S.C. § 717f(h). After plaintiff Sabal Trail Transmission, LLC, received approval from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”) to construct an underground natural gas pipeline from Alabama to Florida, it needed to acquire easements to build and operate the pipeline across property owned by various landowners.

Sabal Trail brought this condemnation action to acquire permanent and temporary easements that would allow it to build and operate a portion of the pipeline on property owned by defendant Sunderman Groves, Inc. Sunderman Groves stipulated in the action that Sabal Trail was entitled to the easements, leaving the appropriate amount of compensation as the only remaining issue. At trial, a jury awarded Sunderman Groves $309,500 as compensation for the easements. The district court then entered a final judgment, awarding Sunderman Groves $309,500 and providing that as part of the compensation award,

* Honorable Eduardo C. Robreno, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation.

2 Case: 18-11836 Date Filed: 01/22/2020 Page: 3 of 23

Sunderman Groves was entitled to recover its attorney’s fees and costs in an amount to be set by the court.

Sabal Trail raises two separate issues on appeal. First, it argues that it is entitled to a new trial because the district court abused its discretion in allowing Jan Sunderman, who owned Sunderman Groves, to give speculative lay opinion testimony about the remaining property’s value after the pipeline was built. Second, Sabal Trail challenges the district court’s decision to award Sunderman Groves its attorney’s fees and costs. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing Sunderman to testify about the value of the property and that we lack jurisdiction to review whether Sunderman Groves is entitled to attorney’s fees and costs. Accordingly, we affirm in part and dismiss in part.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

This case arises from Sabal Trail’s construction of a 500-plus mile underground pipeline to transport natural gas from Alabama to Florida. FERC issued Sabal Trail a certificate of public convenience and necessity authorizing the construction and operation of the pipeline. The certificate authorized Sabal Trail to build the pipeline along a route where Sabal Trail held existing rights-of-way to much of the land needed for construction of the pipeline. For the remaining more than 200 miles of the route, Sabal Trail needed to acquire easements from

3