Montana v. BNSF Railway Co.
2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 22669
| 9th Cir. | 2010Background
- BNSF operated a railroad maintenance and fueling facility near Livingston, Montana for decades, with alleged groundwater and soil contamination.
- In 1988 the State filed federal and state claims, including a CECRA claim, seeking remediation and damages.
- A Partial Consent Decree was entered in 1990, requiring remedial investigation and steps toward a final remedy, with district court retaining jurisdiction but not specifying the remedy.
- The decree expressly did not apply to claims by persons other than the decree’s parties; the State and others pursue remediation under CECRA and state law concurrently.
- In 2007, 152 private Livingston property owners sued in Montana state court for restoration-related relief; in federal court, BNSF sought an injunction under the Anti-Injunction Act to stop the state action.
- The district court denied the injunction under 28 U.S.C. § 2283; BNSF appeals challenging the ruling on the AIA exception.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the relitigation exception to the Anti-Injunction Act applies | Livingston (plaintiffs) contend no federal conflict; CECRA claims are distinct from private restoration claims. | BNSF argues state restoration claims are precluded or controlled by the federal CECRA action. | No relitigation exception; no conflict between federal CECRA and state restoration claims. |
| Whether res judicata bars the state proceeding | CECRA judgment precludes subsequent restoration claims. | There is identity of claims and privity with the CECRA action. | Res judicata does not apply; no identity of claims between CECRA and Livingston restoration claim. |
| If an exception did apply, would the federal court have abused its discretion in denying an injunction | (Not explicitly stated here; the issue would be whether an injunction is proper to protect the federal judgment.) | (Not explicitly stated here; the argument would be that an injunction is warranted under the exception.) | Not reached; no exception applies. |
Key Cases Cited
- Blalock Eddy Ranch v. MCI Telecomms. Corp., 982 F.2d 371 (9th Cir. 1992) (relitigation exception requires possible conflict with federal judgment)
- Chick Kam Choo v. Exxon Corp., 486 U.S. 140 (Supreme Court, 1988) (prerequisite strictness for determining potential conflicts)
- Sunburst School District No. 2 v. Texaco, Inc., 338 Mont. 259, 165 P.3d 1079 (Mont. 2007) (private restoration claims not precluded by CECRA; no implied preemption)
- Shammel v. Canyon Res. Corp., 338 Mont. 541, 167 P.3d 886 (Mont. 2007) (community cleanup context; distinguishable factors deemed insignificant for private claims)
- Sunburst School Dist. No. 2 v. Texaco, Inc. (duplicate citation for emphasis), 338 Mont. 259, 165 P.3d 1079 (Mont. 2007) (CECRA vs. common-law restoration damages compatibility)
- Tahoe-Sierra Pres. Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Reg'l Planning Agency, 322 F.3d 1064 (9th Cir. 2003) (res judicata principles in federal injunction context)
- Atlantic Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Eng'rs, 398 U.S. 281 (Supreme Court, 1970) (principles of injunctions against state proceedings in aid of federal judgments)
- Randtron, Ltd. v. California, 284 F.3d 969 (9th Cir. 2002) (abuse of discretion standards for injunction decisions; consent decree context)
- G.C. and K.B. Invs., Inc. v. Wilson, 326 F.3d 1096 (9th Cir. 2003) (injunction standards; deference to district court's consent decree interpretation)