MD Mall Associates, LLC v. CSX Transportation, Inc.
715 F.3d 479
3rd Cir.2013Background
- MD Mall owns Mac-Dade Mall in Delaware County, PA; CSX operates a railroad with tracks and drainage ditches bordering the Mall.
- A historic earthen berm on CSX’s side was designed to prevent CSX stormwater from reaching the Mall; the berm straddles the property line and MD Mall claims ownership of the slope up to the berm crest.
- In Oct 2010 stormwater breached the berm, flooding the Mall via a private stormwater inlet; CSX considered remedies and discussed options but did not implement a permanent fix.
- MD Mall sought injunctive relief to remedy runoff (originally damages claimed but later narrowed to equitable relief); MD Mall asserted FRSA regulation 49 C.F.R. § 213.33 imposed a duty to maintain drainage and prevent runoff onto its property.
- MD Mall invoked the FRSA and its 2007 Clarification Amendment to argue that its claims were not preempted, and alleged conduct related to CSX’s 2009 track refurbishment affected drainage.
- The District Court granted CSX summary judgment on the FRSA preemption basis, prompting MD Mall’s appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether FRSA express preemption applies to MD Mall’s stormwater claims. | MD Mall argues § 213.33 does not preempt because the Amendment preserves some state-law actions. | CSX contends the FRSA express preemption precludes the state-law claims. | Express preemption does not apply; remand to address merits and potential ICCTA preemption. |
| Whether the Clarification Amendment preserves the claims for injunctive relief. | MD Mall contends Amendment saves actions alleging failure to comply with federal standards or its own plan, enabling injunctive relief. | CSX argues Amendment applies only to damages actions; injunctive relief remains barred. | Amendment applies to claims arising from failure to comply with federal standards or internal plans; remand for development of record on injunctive relief. |
| Whether MD Mall’s waiver or judicial estoppel arguments barred raising new FRSA preemption theories on appeal. | MD Mall claims public-interest waiver should permit its new theory; argues no unfair benefit obtained. | CSX argues waiver/estoppel should bar new arguments. | Waiver/estoppel do not bar the new argument; but will retain public-importance ruling while allowing remand. |
| Whether MD Mall’s claims are impliedly preempted by FRSA as a conflict preemption matter. | MD Mall maintains state-law claims do not conflict with § 213.33 and can proceed. | CSX contends implied preemption may apply if Pennsylvania law obstructs federal safety objectives. | Not resolved on record; remand needed to determine potential obstacle to Congress’s objectives. |
Key Cases Cited
- Easterwood v. CSX Transportation, Inc., 507 U.S. 658 (1993) (preemption scope requires substantial subsumption of subject matter)
- Zimmerman v. Norfolk Southern Corp., 706 F.3d 170 (3d Cir. 2013) (two-step FRSA preemption framework under the Clarification Amendment)
- Bruesewitz v. Wyeth Inc., 561 F.3d 233 (3d Cir. 2009) (presumption against preemption governs FRSA preemption analysis)
- Crosby v. Nat’l Foreign Trade Council, 530 U.S. 363 (2000) (conflict preemption analysis involves whether state law obstructs federal objectives)