126 Fed. Cl. 571
Fed. Cl.2016Background
- Plaintiffs own land in Cleveland County, NC adjacent to segments of a Norfolk Southern rail corridor subject to an August 4, 2015 Notice of Interim Trail Use or Abandonment (NITU) under the National Trails System Act (railbanking).
- Plaintiffs allege the NITU effected a Fifth Amendment taking because Norfolk Southern held easements limited to rail use and railbanking converted use to a recreational trail without just compensation; they seek class certification under RCFC 23 for ~156 potential claimants.
- A separate joinder suit (Brooks) involving the same NITU and ~151 plaintiffs was pending in this court at the time of plaintiffs’ certification motion.
- Plaintiffs rely on counsel’s affidavit and deed copies (some illegible) asserting Norfolk Southern acquired similar easements by condemnation, prescription, and deeds; defendant disputes that common proof can establish easement ownership or scope across all parcels.
- The court analyzed RCFC 23 factors (numerosity, commonality/predominance, typicality, adequacy, superiority) and denied class certification because plaintiffs failed to meet multiple conjunctive requirements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Numerosity: joinder impracticable | 156 potential class members; plurality across nine states makes joinder impracticable | Joinder is practicable — 151 similarly situated owners already joined Brooks; plaintiffs identified addresses and could solicit joinder | Denied: numerosity not met; existence of Brooks joinder undermines impracticability claim (151 joined) |
| Commonality / Predominance: single classwide question whether NITU effected a taking | Central common legal question: NITU caused a taking; deeds use similar language so common proof can resolve easement and scope issues | Whether a taking occurred requires parcel-specific inquiries (existence/scope of easement under diverse deeds), defeating a single classwide answer | Denied: plaintiffs failed to identify a contention susceptible to classwide resolution; individual issues predominate |
| Typicality: representatives’ claims typical of class | Named plaintiffs pursue same legal theory (NITU = taking) and own adjacent parcels | Named plaintiffs have not shown their deeds are representative; complaint and class definition mismatch as to which corridor segments named plaintiffs adjoin | Denied: typicality not satisfied (some named plaintiffs may not match proposed class segments) |
| Superiority / Adequacy: class is superior and representatives counsel adequate | Class litigation offers efficiencies (title work, appraisals) and uniformity; counsel experienced in rails-to-trails cases | Joinder is workable; individualized issues and existing joinder suit make class action unnecessary or confusing; potential conflicts exist | Denied: class not superior; adequacy partly satisfied re: counsel but merged with other deficiencies; overall class certification denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011) (commonality requires a contention capable of classwide resolution)
- Ladd v. United States, 630 F.3d 1015 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (Trails Act takings occur when railbanking converts an easement beyond its original rail scope)
- Caldwell v. United States, 391 F.3d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (NITU divests Board jurisdiction upon full abandonment; state reversionary interests may take effect)
- Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo, 136 S. Ct. 1036 (2016) (common questions are those where the same evidence suffices for each class member or is susceptible to generalized proof)
- Gen. Tel. Co. of the Sw. v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147 (1982) (rigorous analysis required for class certification)
- Geneva Rock Prods., Inc. v. United States, 100 Fed. Cl. 778 (2011) (Rails-to-Trails class certification analysis; identified subissues resolvable with generalized proof)
- Starr Int’l Co. v. United States, 109 Fed. Cl. 628 (2013) (certification where core legal issues could be resolved with generalized proof)
- Bell v. United States, 123 Fed. Cl. 390 (2015) (class certification appropriate where a single government act potentially exceeded easement scope and could be resolved for the class)