Elam v. Kansas City Southern Railway Co.
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 5100
| 5th Cir. | 2011Background
- Elams allege injuries after their car collided with a stopped train at Pine Crest Road crossing in Corinth, Mississippi.
- Elams claim the train owner/operator violated Mississippi antiblocking statute § 77-9-235 (negligence per se) and failed to warn of the crossing.
- KCSR removed to federal court invoking ICCTA complete preemption of the antiblocking claim and removal jurisdiction; Elams sought remand.
- District court held ICCTA completely preempts the negligence per se claim and impliedly preempts the simple negligence claim, dismissing the action without prejudice for STB filing.
- Elams appeal the ICCTA preemption rulings and related jurisdictional decisions.
- Court affirm/partially reverse and remand: complete preemption of the per se claim; simple negligence not preempted on current record; remand for state-law proceedings on that claim; no mandatory STB referral; diversity/joinder issues addressed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does ICCTA completely preempt the negligence per se claim? | Elams argue ICCTA preempts the antiblocking-based claim. | KCSR argues no complete preemption; state law claim remains state-law. | Yes, ICCTA completely preempts the per se claim. |
| Does ICCTA preempt the simple negligence claim? | Elams contend the simple negligence claim is also preempted. | KCSR contends it is preempted or barred by ICCTA. | No, ICCTA does not preempt the simple negligence claim on the current record. |
| Did the district court have removal jurisdiction over the action? | Elams argued lack of complete preemption forecloses removal. | KCSR argued removal was proper due to complete preemption. | Yes, district court had removal jurisdiction. |
| Was referral to the STB required under primary jurisdiction? | Elams suggest STB referral needed for ICCTA claims. | KCSR argues referral not required given lack of substantial issues for STB. | Not required; district court did not abuse by not referring. |
| Is there improper joinder defeating diversity jurisdiction? | Elams contend diversity should exist because Michael improperly joined. | KCSR argues improper joinder to defeat diversity. | Michael not improperly joined; no complete diversity; diversity jurisdiction not available. |
Key Cases Cited
- Friberg v. Kansas City S. Ry. Co., 267 F.3d 439 (5th Cir. 2001) (complete preemption framework; economic regulation core of ICCTA preemption)
- Franks Inv. Co. LLC v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 593 F.3d 404 (5th Cir. 2010) (en banc; complete preemption context; economic regulation emphasis)
- Barrois v. New Orleans & Gulf Coast Ry. Co., 533 F.3d 321 (5th Cir. 2008) (complete preemption; questions of scope under ICCTA)
- PCI Transp. Inc. v. Fort Worth & W. R.R. Co., 418 F.3d 535 (5th Cir. 2005) (complete preemption; claims that directly regulate rail economics)
- Pejepscot Indus. Park, Inc. v. Me. Cent. R.R. Co., 215 F.3d 195 (1st Cir. 2000) (recognizes removal when ICCTA preempts state law; choice of forum)