889 F. Supp. 2d 1252
E.D. Wash.2012Background
- B & S Holdings sues to obtain fee simple title to part of BNSF’s property along its rail line in Chelan County, Washington.
- BNSF removed the action to federal court invoking federal question jurisdiction; no other party has appeared.
- B & S Holdings moves to remand to state court; BNSF moves to dismiss citing complete ICCTA preemption.
- B & S Holdings contends encroachment of its property onto BNSF land; seeks quiet title on behalf of its successor Wenatchee School District No. 246.
- The court considers whether ICCTA complete preemption or diversity jurisdiction supports removal, and whether STB should decide the underlying dispute.
- The court analyzes whether ICCTA preempts state adverse possession claims and assesses diversity to sustain removal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ICCTA complete preemption supports removal | B&S asserts no federal question; preemption not complete. | BNSF argues ICCTA preempts state law adverse possession, giving federal jurisdiction. | Complete preemption; removal proper. |
| Whether ICCTA preemption applies to adverse possession claims | State adverse possession claims are not preempted on their face. | ICCTA preempts state actions that would interfere with rail operations. | ICCTA preempts the state adverse possession claim as to this case. |
| Whether diversity jurisdiction exists to support removal | Value of the property is below threshold; diversity not established. | Value exceeds $75,000; complete diversity exists; removal proper. | Diversity jurisdiction exists; amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. |
| Whether the case should be dismissed because STB has exclusive jurisdiction | State action should proceed in state court; STB not necessary yet. | STB has exclusive jurisdiction over rail transportation matters; dismissal appropriate. | Dismissal with prejudice; STB preemption governs the dispute. |
Key Cases Cited
- Abrego Abrego v. Dow Chem. Co., 443 F.3d 676 (9th Cir.2006) (burden of establishing removal jurisdiction rests with defendant)
- Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (1994) (presumption against removal jurisdiction)
- Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564 (9th Cir.1992) (ambiguity resolved in favor of remand)
- Ansley v. Ameriquest Mortgage Co., 340 F.3d 858 (9th Cir.2003) (well-pleaded complaint rule for federal question jurisdiction)
- Empire Healthchoice Assurance, Inc. v. McVeigh, 547 U.S. 677 (2006) (federal question arises if federal law creates the cause of action or relief depends on substantial federal questions)
- Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust for S. Cal., 463 U.S. 1 (1983) (removal cannot be based on federal defense; preemption exception noted)
- City of Auburn v. United States, 154 F.3d 1025 (9th Cir.1998) (preemption breadth under ICCTA; exclusive STB jurisdiction over rail regulation)
- Barrois v. New Orleans & Gulf Coast Ry. Co., 533 F.3d 321 (5th Cir.2008) (test for complete preemption under ICCTA)
- Avco Corp. v. Aero Lodge No. 735, Int’l Ass’n of Machinists, 390 U.S. 557 (1968) (complete preemption framework)
- DHX, Inc. v. Surface Transp. Bd., 501 F.3d 1086 (9th Cir.2007) (Chevron framework applied to agency interpretations under ICCTA)
- Pacific Indem. Co. v. Atlas Van Lines, Inc., 642 F.3d 702 (9th Cir.2011) (guidance on scope of ICCTA preemption; reliance on STB decisions)