United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Northeastern Division
DOUBLE SPRINGS UTILITY DISTRICT OF PUTNAM COUNTY, TENNESSEE, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant,
TOWN OF BAXTER, TENNESSEE, Defendant/Counterclaimant.
Michael J. Wall Benjamin A. Gastel BRANSTETTER, STRANCH &
JENNINGS, PLLC Attorneys for Double Springs Utility District
of Putnam County, Tennessee
H. Rader, III Daniel H. Rader, IV MOORE, RADER, FITZPATRICK
AND YORK, P.C. Attorneys for Town of Baxter, Tennessee
Newbern, Magistrate Judge.
WAVERLY D. CRENSHAW, JR. CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Plaintiff, Double Springs Utility District of Putnam County,
Tennessee (“the District”), filed its Complaint
(Dkt. No. 1) in this action on January 20, 2017. The District
alleges that it has the exclusive right under 7 U.S.C. §
1926(b) to provide water service to a parcel of land
designated as Map 37, Parcel 70, located at the intersection
of Highway 70N and Highway 56, with the address of 6333
Nashville Hwy, Baxter, TN 38544 (“the Property”).
The District further asserts that the Defendant, Town of
Baxter, Tennessee (“Baxter”), proposed to provide
water service to the Property in violation of 7 U.S.C. §
1926(b) and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
filed its Counterclaim (Dkt. No. 9) on February 21, 2017.
Baxter alleges that it has the exclusive right under 7 U.S.C.
§ 1926(b) and Tennessee law, such as Tenn. Code Ann.
§§ 6-51-101, et seq. and
7-82-301(a)(1)(B), to provide water service to the Property.
Mayor of Baxter and the President of the District's Board
of Commissioners signed a “Settlement Agreement,
” attached hereto as Exhibit A, on May 1, 2017, and May
8, 2017, respectively. The District asserts that the
Settlement Agreement is a valid and binding agreement that
resolves this action. However, Baxter asserts that its Board
of Mayor and Aldermen did not approve the Settlement
Agreement so as to make it a valid and binding agreement.
Baxter has asked for certain changes to the Settlement
Agreement. Solely to avoid further delay and expense, the
District has agreed to amend the Settlement Agreement,
conditioned upon the Court's approval and ongoing
3. At a
public meeting held on September 11, 2017, which was
previously advertised to the public in bills mailed to the
District's customers on August 29, 2017, as well as on
the District's website, the District's Board of
Commissioners voted to approve the terms of this Consent
Decree with Exhibit A and authorized the District's
attorney, Michael J. Wall, to sign and submit it on the
4. At a
public meeting held on September 14, 2017, which was
previously advertised to the public on August 27, 2017, in
the Herald-Citizen, Baxter's Board of Mayor and
Aldermen voted to approve the terms of this Consent Decree
with Exhibit A and authorized Baxter's attorney, Daniel
H. Rader, IV, to sign and submit it on Baxter's behalf.
parties have agreed to and submitted this Consent Decree, as
memorialized by the signatures of their counsel below. The
Court hereby approves this Consent Decree and orders the
parties to conform their conduct to its terms.
Court has original subject matter jurisdiction over this
action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because the parties
assert rights under federal law. The Court also has personal
jurisdiction over the parties.
Court shall retain jurisdiction over this action to
effectuate and enforce the provisions of this Consent Decree
and to resolve disputes over the execution, construction,