Norfolk Southern Railway v. Baltimore and Annapolis Rail, 16-1986

In August 2011 B&A moved 31 Norfolk Southern railcars across B&A track; 13 minutes later the FRA issued an embargo because B&A’s bridges were noncompliant, leaving the cars stranded.
Norfolk Southern sued May 9, 2013, asserting conversion and car hire (rental) claims; amended complaint added conversion.
After extensive discovery, the district court granted partial summary judgment for Norfolk Southern on liability and on car hire for August 2011–March 5, 2012, and ordered steps to retrieve the cars or for B&A to buy them at fair market value.
B&A missed deadlines, the district court found B&A in contempt in January 2016 and awarded $582,172.90 as the railcars’ fair market value and later awarded $649,755.57 in car hire through December 2015.
On appeal the Fourth Circuit affirmed jurisdiction and liability holdings and the car-hire award but held the record lacked evidentiary support for the $582,172.90 fair-market-value figure and remanded for development of evidence and recalculation of damages.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Subject-matter jurisdiction under ICCTA	Federal courts retain concurrent jurisdiction to enforce liability against carriers.	ICCTA/STB preempts federal-court jurisdiction; case should be for STB.	Federal courts have concurrent original jurisdiction with STB.
Primary jurisdiction/referral to STB	District court can decide; issues are routine legal/factual matters.	STB expertise required; court should refer.	No abuse of discretion in declining referral.
Double recovery from awarding FMV and car hire	Both awards compensate different harms (conversion/purchase vs. lost use/opportunity cost).	Awarding both is duplicative.	No double recovery; awards address distinct losses.
Adequacy of evidence for fair market value ($582,172.90)	Value was supported by AAR depreciated values (but not submitted in record).	Value is unsupported; no admissible evidence in record.	Reversed on this point: record lacks evidentiary support; remand to take evidence and recalculate.

U.S. ex rel. Vuyyuru v. Jadhav, 555 F.3d 337 (4th Cir.) (standard of review for subject-matter jurisdiction questions)
Chicago & N.W. Transp. Co. v. Kalo Brick & Tile Co., 450 U.S. 311 (U.S. 1981) (historical federal regulation of railroads)
Pejepscot Indus. Park, Inc. v. Me. Cent. R.R. Co., 215 F.3d 195 (1st Cir.) (concurrent jurisdiction under ICCTA)
Elam v. Kansas City S. Ry. Co., 635 F.3d 796 (5th Cir.) (concurrent jurisdiction under ICCTA)
Simms v. United States, 839 F.3d 364 (4th Cir.) (standard of review for legal conclusions on damages)
Envtl. Tech. Council v. Sierra Club, 98 F.3d 774 (4th Cir.) (primary jurisdiction doctrine explained)
Overbrook Farmers Union Coop. v. Mo. Pac. R.R. Co., 21 F.3d 360 (10th Cir.) (history of federal-court jurisdiction in rail matters)
Genovese v. Bergeron, 490 S.E.2d 608 (S.C. Ct. App.) (South Carolina rule on duty to mitigate)