582 S.W.3d 548
Tex. App.2018Background
- Three apartment complexes sued Union Pacific and others for flooding after 2016 and 2017 storms, alleging Union Pacific’s bridge across Greens Bayou and failures to restore/maintain the crossing contributed to flooding.
- Plaintiffs’ live petition alleges violations of Tex. Transp. Code § 112.057 (duty to restore stream and keep crossing in repair) and negligent failure to manage vegetation, debris, and obstructions under the rail bridge.
- Union Pacific filed a Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 91a motion to dismiss, arguing Plaintiffs’ state-law claims are preempted by the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act (ICCTA), 49 U.S.C. § 10501.
- The trial court denied Union Pacific’s Rule 91a motion; Union Pacific sought mandamus relief from the 14th Court of Appeals to compel dismissal and attorneys’ fees.
- The appellate panel reviewed whether the pleadings, construed liberally, show ICCTA preemption as a matter of law and whether dismissal under Rule 91a was required.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Plaintiffs’ state-law claims are expressly preempted by the ICCTA | Plaintiffs allege state duties to restore stream and remove debris; these are traditional state-law remedies for property/trespass/negligence | Union Pacific contends ICCTA expressly preempts state regulation of rail transportation, and bridges/facilities fall within federal "transportation" definition | Denied: pleadings do not, as a matter of law, seek to regulate rail operations or fall within express ICCTA preemption |
| Whether the pleaded facts fall within ICCTA’s definition of "transportation" or STB-regulated matters | Plaintiffs claim duties relate to land/maintenance under bridge, not to rail operations or construction/operation decisions | Union Pacific points to broad statutory definitions and FRSA/FRA drainage/regulations implicating rail safety/facilities | Held that bayou/debris under bridge, as pleaded, are not clearly "transportation" facilities regulating movement; ICCTA not shown to expressly preempt claims |
| Whether implied (as-applied) ICCTA preemption disposes of claims on Rule 91a review | Plaintiffs rely on state-law duties; did not seek to change railroad operations or structure | Union Pacific did not press implied preemption in its Rule 91a motion; implied preemption requires fact‑based inquiry | Court declined to decide implied preemption on Rule 91a; noted fact‑based review inappropriate at pleading stage |
| Whether mandamus relief is warranted to review denial of Rule 91a motion | Plaintiffs argue trial process should continue; Rule 91a denial reviewable | Union Pacific sought mandamus after trial court denial | Mandamus denied: relator failed to show trial court abused discretion or no adequate remedy by appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- ConocoPhillips Co. v. Koopmann, 547 S.W.3d 858 (Tex. 2018) (mandamus available to review denial of Rule 91a motion)
- In re Essex Ins. Co., 450 S.W.3d 524 (Tex. 2014) (review of Rule 91a denial via mandamus)
- City of Dallas v. Sanchez, 494 S.W.3d 722 (Tex. 2016) (de novo review of Rule 91a; pleading-only inquiry)
- Weizhong Zheng v. Vacation Network, Inc., 468 S.W.3d 180 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2015) (pleadings construed liberally for Rule 91a review)
- Franks Inv. Co. v. Union Pac. R.R., 593 F.3d 404 (5th Cir. 2010) (framework for ICCTA express and implied preemption)
- Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. v. City of Houston, 171 S.W.3d 240 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2005) (state laws that regulate railroads are preempted)
- Emerson v. Kansas City S. Ry., 503 F.3d 1126 (10th Cir. 2007) (drainage adjacent to track is not an instrumentality of rail transportation)
- Boston & Me. Corp. v. STB, 364 F.3d 318 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (FRA has primary jurisdiction over rail safety, STB over transportation regulation)
- Tyrrell v. Norfolk So. Ry., 248 F.3d 517 (6th Cir. 2001) (FRSA governs preemption for rail safety-related state claims)
- A & W Props., Inc. v. Kansas City S. Ry., 200 S.W.3d 342 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2006) (fact‑based finding that requiring structural changes would interfere with rail operations)