Christensen v. BNSF Railway Co., 242 F. Supp. 3d 1186

Velma Christensen owns land in Miami County, Kansas, leased to James Cummings; a railroad easement (now BNSF) runs diagonally across the property and originally included two large box-culvert tunnels allowing livestock/equipment to cross.
In July 2015 Christensen granted BNSF and SEMA a temporary access easement for railroad repairs; defendants replaced the box culverts with six smaller round pipes that no longer accommodate crossings.
Christensen attempted to terminate the temporary easement in October 2015; defendants continued work and plaintiffs filed suit in state court asserting trespass, fraud, breach of contract, and seeking an injunction requiring restoration of an accessway (large culverts).
BNSF removed to federal court asserting federal-question jurisdiction based on complete preemption by the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act (ICCTA); SEMA joined removal.
The district court concluded the ICCTA does not completely preempt plaintiffs’ state-law easement/injunction claim, remanded the case to state court, and declined to decide defendants’ motions to dismiss.
The court denied plaintiffs’ request for removal-related attorney fees, finding removal unreasonable but not objectively unreasonable given sparse controlling precedent.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether federal court has jurisdiction via federal-question because ICCTA completely preempts state easement/injunction claim	Christensen: claim is state-law (easement); removal improper; remand required	BNSF: ICCTA completely preempts plaintiffs’ injunction claim, creating federal-question jurisdiction	Court: No complete preemption; remand granted for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction
Whether ICCTA provides an exclusive federal cause of action covering plaintiffs’ relief	Plaintiffs: ICCTA does not supply a federal cause of action for restoring access under railroad	Defendants: ICCTA (and regulations) displace state law and foreclose state remedies	Court: ICCTA’s remedial/administrative scheme does not provide an exclusive federal cause of action for these easement claims
Whether defendants’ removal was objectively unreasonable (award of fees under 28 U.S.C. §1447(c))	Plaintiffs: removal was unreasonable; fee award appropriate	Defendants: removal was defensible given unsettled precedent on ICCTA complete preemption	Court: Removal was likely unreasonable but not objectively unreasonable; fees denied
Whether district court should resolve defendants’ motions to dismiss before remand	Plaintiffs: remand requested so state court can decide state-law motions	Defendants: removal put motions before federal court	Court: Declined to rule on motions to dismiss; left them to state court post-remand

Devon Energy Prod. Co. v. Mosaic Potash Carlsbad, Inc., 693 F.3d 1195 (10th Cir.) (explains well-pleaded complaint rule and limits of federal-defense removal)
Beneficial Nat’l Bank v. Anderson, 539 U.S. 1 (2003) (explains that a federal defense based on preemption does not support removal)
Aetna Health Inc. v. Davila, 542 U.S. 200 (2004) (discusses when a federal statute's comprehensive scheme supports complete preemption)
Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Taylor, 481 U.S. 58 (1987) (cautions that complete preemption is an extraordinary doctrine to be applied narrowly)
Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132 (2005) (standards for awarding fees on remand under §1447(c))
Schmeling v. NORDAM, 97 F.3d 1336 (10th Cir.) (articulates complete-preemption framework in circuit precedent)
Griffioen v. Cedar Rapids & Iowa City Ry. Co., 785 F.3d 1182 (8th Cir.) (holds ICCTA express preemption does not alone authorize federal-question jurisdiction via complete preemption)
Tres Lotes LLC v. BNSF Ry. Co., 61 F. Supp. 3d 1213 (D.N.M.) (refuses to apply ICCTA complete preemption to an easement/injunction claim)
Shupp v. Reading Blue Mountain & Northern R.R., 850 F. Supp. 2d 490 (M.D. Pa.) (similar holding that ICCTA does not completely preempt easement-based injunctive claims)