Farmers Cooperative Co. v. United States
100 Fed. Cl. 579
Fed. Cl.2011Background
- Plaintiffs own property adjacent to two K&O rail line segments in Kansas (CKP corridor and Hodgeman corridor) and K&O held a railroad right-of-way there.
- In Aug 2003, K&O filed a Notice of Exemption proposing abandonment; in Nov 2003 the Trails Act prompted ATA to request a Notice of Interim Trail Use (NITU).
- STB issued NITUs for both corridors in Nov 2003; in Apr 2004 K&O conveyed its interest to ATA via quitclaim deed and tracks were removed prior to the conveyance.
- K&O and ATA entered into an interim trail use arrangement extending the NITU, but ATA never began trail usage even though rail service ceased; ATA later sought termination in 2007 and STB granted termination and authorized abandonment; ATA released its rights in Pratt County portion in 2008.
- STB issued three additional NITUs; each expired after 180 days without a trail use agreement; K&O did not file a Notice of Consummation of Abandonment.
- The court concluded the United States is liable for a temporary taking, not a permanent one, because no final Notice of Consummation was filed and all NITUs expired without trail use arrangements; motion for reconsideration was denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does failure to file a Notice of Consummation affect the taking's duration? | K&O's inaction leaves STB jurisdiction ongoing, implying a permanent taking. | All issues were previously briefed; no new grounds warrant reconsideration. | No; taking remains temporary; reconsideration denied. |
| Is reconsideration justified by new requests for discovery or depositions? | Plaintiffs seek STB and K&O depositions to develop the agency's position. | No new material facts or law; evidence immaterial to duration of taking. | No; discovery requests and new evidence do not warrant reconsideration. |
| Did the court incorrectly rule on the STB's regulatory framework governing duration of the taking? | Regulatory interpretations affect status of rights-of-way and duration of taking. | Regulatory issues were raised previously; no manifest injustice or new authority. | No; reconsideration denied; existing reasoning stands. |
Key Cases Cited
- Caldwell v. United States, 391 F.3d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (trail-use designation can prevent abandonment and vest landowner rights unless vesting is blocked)
- Farmers Coop. Co. v. United States, 98 Fed.Cl. 797 (2011) (rails-to-trails taking framework and temporariness under STB actions)
- Barclay v. United States, 443 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (taking occurs when state-law interests are prevented from vesting)
- Ladd v. United States, 630 F.3d 1015 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (taking may be temporary if no trail-use agreement is reached)
- Cobell v. Norton, 224 F.R.D. 266 (D.D.C. 2004) (limits reconsideration; ‘justice requires’ standard and discretion)
- Alpha I, L.P. ex rel. Sands v. United States, 86 Fed.Cl. 568 (Fed. Cl. 2009) (reconsideration standards are flexible but not a second trial)
- Matthews v. United States, 73 Fed.Cl. 524 (Fed. Cl. 2006) (reconsideration not to be an opportunity to reargue old issues)
- Gelco Builders and Burjay Const. Corp. v. United States, 177 Ct.Cl. 1025 (1966) (litigants should not use reconsideration to reargue issues manifestly available earlier)