648 F.3d 915
8th Cir.2011Background
- Railroad Salvage and Wiedeman (petitioners) challenge a Surface Transportation Board (Board) order finding an interest-rate practice not unreasonable under 49 U.S.C. § 10702(2).
- Missouri & Northern Arkansas Railroad Company (MNA) charged demurrage and interest on unpaid demurrage; petitioners relied on MNA tariffs.
- MNA sued Railroad Salvage in federal court and Wiedeman in Missouri circuit court for demurrage and interest due; petitioners moved to have the Board decide the referred issues.
- The district court and Missouri court referred five demurrage-issue questions to the Board; the Board additionally addressed non-referred issues, including the interest-rate issue.
- Board ruled there was no unreasonable practice in charging 1-2% interest monthly; petitioners sought judicial review in this court.
- Board moved to dismiss arguing exclusive jurisdiction lies in the district court under 28 U.S.C. § 1336(b) to review the interest-rate determination arising from the referral.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 1336(b) grants exclusive jurisdiction to review the interest-rate issue. | Railroad Salvage argues § 1336(b) does not cover non-referred issues; this court retains jurisdiction. | Board argues the interest-rate issue arose out of the referral and § 1336(b) grants exclusive jurisdiction to review it. | Yes; district court has exclusive jurisdiction to review the interest-rate issue arising from the referral. |
| Whether the interest-rate issue arose out of the district court's referral. | Issue did not arise out of the referral since it was not explicitly referred. | Issue arose out of the referral because it relates to the same dispute and tariffs as the referred issues. | Yes; the Board's interest-rate decision arose out of the referral. |
| Whether the court should interpret § 1336(b) broadly to avoid bifurcated review. | Broad interpretation would be inconsistent with the text requiring explicit referral for review. | Broad interpretation prevents cumbersome, two-stage review by avoiding bifurcation. | Yes; § 1336(b) may vest exclusive jurisdiction beyond explicitly referred issues to avoid bifurcation. |
| How the McCarty Farms decision affects the interpretation of § 1336(b). | McCarty Farms supports restricting review to explicitly referred issues. | McCarty Farms is distinguishable; here the dispute context supports broader review. | Distinguishable; this case aligns with broader read of § 1336(b). |
| What is the effect on review of Wiedeman's interest-rate issue if Railroad Salvage's review is dismissed. | Petition should proceed for Wiedeman; Railroad Salvage review is distinct. | Resolving the Railroad Salvage issue could moot Wiederam's, so abeyance is appropriate. | Petition dismissed as to Railroad Salvage; petition held in abeyance as to Wiedeman to allow meaningful district-court review. |
Key Cases Cited
- DeBruce Grain, Inc. v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 149 F.3d 787 (8th Cir. 1998) (board regulatory jurisdiction)
- Union Pacific Railroad Co. v. Ametek, Inc., 104 F.3d 558 (3d Cir. 1997) (exclusive jurisdiction for review arises out of referral)
- McCarty Farms, Inc. v. Surface Transportation Board, 158 F.3d 1294 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (scope of referral and Board determinations not strictly confined to referred issues)
- Railroad Labor Executives' Ass'n v. Interstate Commerce Comm'n, 894 F.2d 915 (7th Cir. 1990) (avoid bifurcated review)