Henry C. Wedemeyer v. CSX Transportation, Inc.
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 4303
| 7th Cir. | 2017Background
- CSX sought and obtained ICC/STB permission in 1989–1990 to end common-carrier service on a 26.73-mile segment of an east–west line in Putnam County, Indiana; CSX notified the ICC it had “abandoned” the segment for common-carrier purposes.
- CSX thereafter leased part of the track (including the segment at issue) to a grain shipper; CSX retained rights to switch and operate over the leased track and continued rail activity (storage, switching, car movements) for years thereafter.
- Henry and Martha Wedemeyer own property adjoining ~2,588 feet of the former mainline east of Milepost 159.18; they sued in state court (removed to federal) seeking ejectment, removal of track, and possession of the underlying land, claiming the railroad’s easement had been extinguished.
- The Wedemeyers relied on a class-action settlement/declaratory judgment (Clark v. CSX) showing CSX held only an easement, and argued that judgment/settlement constituted an agreement releasing CSX’s rights.
- The district court granted summary judgment to CSX, holding the Wedemeyers’ state-law claims seeking to terminate CSX’s use of the track were preempted by the ICCTA (49 U.S.C. § 10501(b)); the court did not reach CSX’s statute-of-limitations/equitable defenses.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Wedemeyers’ suit to eject CSX and remove track is preempted by the ICCTA | Wedemeyers: their claim derives from a settlement/declaratory judgment (contractual) and thus is not a state regulation subject to ICCTA preemption | CSX: the suit would control and terminate railroad use of right-of-way and therefore regulates rail transportation, so ICCTA preempts state-law remedies | Held: Preempted — plaintiffs’ attempt to terminate active rail operations is regulation of rail transportation and falls within STB’s exclusive jurisdiction |
| Whether the Clark declaratory judgment/settlement created a voluntary contract releasing CSX’s rights to use the right-of-way | Wedemeyers: declaratory judgment memorializes CSX’s agreement to abandon and surrender rights; thus private-contract exception avoids preemption | CSX: the judgment only determined property interests (fee vs. easement) and did not show CSX gave up right to enter/use the land; no contract releasing use in the record | Held: The judgment only clarified property interests; it did not establish a voluntary contractual release of the right to use so it does not avoid ICCTA preemption |
| Whether CSX’s earlier regulatory “abandonment” removed the STB’s jurisdiction or converted the track out of rail status | Wedemeyers: cited ICC/STB abandonment decisions to argue the line was no longer a rail line after abandonment | CSX: the line remained in rail use (auxiliary/spur) and STB jurisdiction continues unless there is complete abandonment (cessation of operations) | Held: Complete abandonment (cessation of operations and removal/abandonment of rail use) is required to remove STB jurisdiction; continued operations keep the line under federal jurisdiction |
| Whether the Wedemeyers’ state-law remedies (trespass/ejectment/damages) can proceed despite ICCTA | Wedemeyers: seek relief in state court based on property rights and tort; damages/ownership remedies should be available | CSX: allowing state claims to eject would effectively regulate and control rail operations—functionally preempted | Held: Damages or ejectment that would control rail operations are preempted; plaintiffs must proceed, if at all, before the Surface Transportation Board |
Key Cases Cited
- Union Pac. R.R. Co. v. Chi. Transit Auth., 647 F.3d 675 (7th Cir. 2011) (federal preemption applies when a state action would control or restrict railroad operations)
- Cipollone v. Liggett Grp., Inc., 505 U.S. 504 (U.S. 1992) (state remedies can regulate conduct as effectively as preventive relief)
- Pace v. CSX Transp., Inc., 613 F.3d 1066 (11th Cir. 2010) (ICCTA preempts state-law claims affecting operation of side tracks)
- Tubbs v. Surface Transp. Bd., 812 F.3d 1141 (8th Cir. 2015) (ICCTA preempted state-law tort claims that burden rail transportation)
- Consolidated Rail Corp. v. Lewellen, 666 N.E.2d 958 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996) (easement extinguishes and title may revert to landowners after full abandonment)
- Howard v. United States, 964 N.E.2d 779 (Ind. 2012) (scope of an easement is defined by its transportation purpose; conversion to a trail may exceed easement scope)