Allied Erecting & Dismantling Co. v. Surface Transportation Board, 835 F.3d 548

Allied Erecting & Dismantling Co. seeks to evict Mahoning Valley Railroad from two sets of tracks on parcels flanking the Center Street Bridge in Youngstown, Ohio.
East-side tracks (the “LTV tracks”) are on land Allied claims to own; Mahoning held an easement and began parking railcars there, prompting Allied to sue in state court and the dispute to be referred to the Surface Transportation Board (STB).
West-side parcel (lot 62188) involves disputed ownership: parties agree Mahoning once owned it; Allied claims Mahoning sold it and Allied now owns the lot and tracks; state court was asked to resolve ownership.
The STB concluded the contested tracks were used by a common carrier and thus within federal jurisdiction under the Interstate Commerce Act; Allied argued the tracks were private (in-plant) and outside STB jurisdiction.
Allied also sought reopening based on a former Mahoning employee’s affidavit (Spiker) claiming the LTV tracks were built as in-plant tracks; the STB declined to reopen, finding the affidavit not new and Allied’s private-track argument untimely.
The Sixth Circuit upheld the STB: Allied’s late assertion that the tracks were private was properly rejected, and Mahoning’s present common-carrier use places the tracks within STB jurisdiction; the court remanded ownership issues concerning lot 62188 to state court.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether STB has jurisdiction over LTV tracks	Allied: tracks are private (in-plant) so outside STB jurisdiction	STB/Mahoning: Mahoning now provides common-carrier transportation over the tracks, so STB has jurisdiction	Held: STB jurisdiction affirmed; Allied’s late private-track claim rejected and present common-carrier use controls
Whether STB should have reopened its prior decision based on Spiker affidavit	Allied: affidavit shows tracks were built as private, warranting reconsideration	STB: affidavit was available earlier and is not new evidence; late reopening improper	Held: STB properly denied reconsideration as the affidavit was not new evidence
Characterization of tracks on lot 62188 (private vs. excepted/mainline)	Allied: tracks became private when Mahoning sold lot 62188	STB: Allied conceded tracks are not private; Mahoning was using them to provide common-carrier service	Held: STB jurisdiction stands; ownership of lot 62188 must be resolved by state court before further STB determination
Effect of unauthorized carrier operations on STB jurisdiction	Allied: unauthorized use cannot convert private tracks into carrier tracks	STB: statute covers "transportation by rail carrier" broadly; lack of STB authorization does not defeat jurisdiction	Held: Court rejects Allied’s argument; unauthorized operations do not immunize tracks from STB jurisdiction if they meet statutory definition of common-carrier transportation

Nicholson v. Interstate Commerce Comm'n, 711 F.2d 364 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (distinguishes mainline tracks from ancillary tracks and describes continuous through-train service)
Kieronski v. Wyandotte Terminal R.R. Co., 806 F.2d 107 (6th Cir. 1986) (in-plant tracks are not common-carrier tracks)
Port City Prop. v. Union Pacific R. Co., 518 F.3d 1186 (10th Cir. 2008) (discusses STB authority and management of excepted tracks under statutory scheme)
City of Riverview v. Surface Transp. Bd., 398 F.3d 434 (6th Cir. 2005) (standard of review for STB decisions)