Baillargeon v. CSX Transp. Corp.

• Decision Date: 29 May 2020
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 19-30135-MGM
• Citation: 463 F.Supp.3d 76
• Parties: David Paul BAILLARGEON and Lori Ann Baillargeon, Plaintiffs v. CSX TRANSPORTATION CORP., Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts

463 F.Supp.3d 76

David Paul BAILLARGEON and Lori Ann Baillargeon, Plaintiffs

v.CSX TRANSPORTATION CORP., Defendant.

Civil Action No. 19-30135-MGM

United States District Court, D. Massachusetts.

Filed May 29, 2020

David Paul Baillargeon, Huntington, MA, pro se.

Lori Ann Baillargeon, Huntington, MA, pro se.

Michael T. Maroney, Zachary D. Reisch, Holland & Knight, LLP, Boston, MA, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTIONS FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

(Dkt. No. 29)

MASTROIANNI, U.S.D.J.

I. INTRODUCTION

Presently before the court is a Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Dkt. No. 29), filed by David Paul Baillargeon and Lori Ann Baillargeon ("Plaintiffs"), who are proceeding pro se. Plaintiffs request that the court order CSX Transportation Corp. ("Defendant") to (1) remove barriers it placed in front of a road Plaintiffs have used for thirty years for accessing their residence, fuel delivery, and emergency services; and (2) either replace a certain crossing over the railroad track adjacent to Plaintiffs’ property or improve the blocked road by lowering its grade and widening it. For the following reasons, the court will grant Plaintiffs’ motion, in part, by ordering the removal of the barriers and enjoining Defendant from interfering with Plaintiffs’ access to the road in question for purposes of Plaintiffs’ essential residential usage, fuel delivery, and emergency services access.

II. BACKGROUND ¹

Plaintiffs live at 3 Thomas Road in Huntington, Massachusetts and own many acres of contiguous land in a parcel sometimes referred to as "Little Canada". (Dkt. No. 1, Compl. ¶ 1A, Exs. A, H, K, and L.) Plaintiffs have used this land since at least the early 1980s for various business purposes, including gravel hauling. (Compl., Exs. H and K.)

In prior litigation, the Massachusetts Court of Appeals in 1986 held that Plaintiffs had obtained a private prescriptive easement over a northerly access to "Old Wood Road," but that they could not use this northern access "for traffic generated ... by gravel removal or similar purpose resulting in the frequent coming and going of vehicles." (Compl., Ex. H.) Carmel v. Baillargeon , 21 Mass.App.Ct. 426, 487 N.E.2d 867, 870-71 (1986).² As the Massachusetts Appeals Court noted, the southern portion of Old Wood Road, which at the time crossed railroad tracks twice, "first becomes [from north to south] Thomas Road and then Carrington Road." Id. at 869 ; see also id. at 871 (sketch of Old Wood Road attached as an appendix to appeals court opinion). In or around 1986, Defendant's predecessor, Conrail, moved the southern portion of Old Wood Road from the west side of the railroad tracks to the east side, eliminating the need to cross the tracks, and removed the two crossings. (Compl. at 6; Ex. D-2 at 1; Ex. L.)³ Plaintiffs have continuously used this southern portion of Old Wood Road/Thomas Road to access their property for residential and business (namely, gravel hauling) purposes both before and after the road was relocated to the east side of the tracks. (Compl. Ex. D-2 at 1-2, Ex. L-4.)⁴

Plaintiffs’ use of this southern portion of the road continued unabated until July of 2017, when Plaintiffs received a letter from Defendant (through its agent Jeff Everett) disputing their use of the road. (Compl., Exs. D-2 and D-3; Dkt. No. 36-1.) Plaintiffs assert they reached an agreement with Mr. Everett that Plaintiffs would lower the grade of the road and widen it to avoid traveling closer than 25 feet from the center of the railroad tracks. (Compl., Ex. D-2.) Plaintiffs further assert they arranged for John Rossatti (who had removed gravel from Plaintiff's property since the 1980s) to complete this work and that Mr. Rossatti "spoke with Jeff Everett and both verbally agreed to start the work on the road." (Id. at 2.) Nevertheless, according to Plaintiffs, on August 15, 2017 (on Mr. Rossatti's second day working on the road), a Massachusetts State Police officer ordered Mr. Rossatti's employee to stop working because he was trespassing, and Plaintiffs received No Trespass Orders for using this portion of the road. (Id. ; Ex. A.)⁵ Defendant then blocked Plaintiffs’ access to this portion of the road by placing six concrete jersey barriers—three on the southern end of this portion of the road and three to the north near the boundary of Plaintiffs’ property, approximately 600-700 yards away. (Compl., Exs. B, D-2 at 2; Dkt. No. 36 ¶ 10.)

Although Plaintiffs have some access to their property through the northern portion of Old Wood Road, in conjunction with the private prescriptive easement recognized by the Massachusetts Appeals Court in 1986, this portion of the road has not been maintained and cannot accommodate fuel delivery or regular emergency service vehicles at any time of the year. (Compl. at ¶ 1; Exs. C, D-1, D-2; see also Dkt. No. 36-2 to 36-14.) As a result, Plaintiffs’ fuel delivery company, Wheeler Oil Co., Inc., sent them an August 25, 2017 letter stating it can "no longer deliver oil/service your furnace at 3 Thomas Rd, Huntington MA. due [to] circumstances and situations with the Rail Road" and it is unable to access the home through the northern portion of Old Wood Road. (Compl., Ex. C-3.) Similarly, the Hilltown Community Ambulance Association, Inc., sent Plaintiffs an August 30, 2017 letter explaining that its primary ambulance cannot reach their home through the northern access and that "in the event of a medical emergency we have other options we could utilize in order to extricate a patient from your property, but they will involve additional resources and time." (Compl., Ex. C-1.) In addition, the Huntington Fire Department sent Plaintiffs a letter acknowledging the lack of access for emergency vehicles and the inability of large fire trucks to reach the property through the northern route, while also stating "the Fire Dept. will use any and every means to get to you in an emergency" pending a resolution of the issue with Defendant. (Compl., Ex. C-2.)⁶

Shortly after the placement of the jersey barriers, Plaintiffs began appealing to their local and state representatives for assistance. On September 13, 2017, Plaintiffs met with the Huntington Board of Selectmen, which indicated it could not help Plaintiffs. (Compl., Ex. D-2 at 3.) On December 1, 2017, Massachusetts State Senator Adam Hinds and Massachusetts State Representative Stephen Kulik wrote a letter to Defendant on behalf of Plaintiffs, highlighting the safety concerns regarding access for emergency vehicles and urging Defendant to resolve the situation with Plaintiffs. (Compl., Ex. D-1.) Plaintiffs also allege in their complaint, and asserted at the hearing, that they have "made every effort to convince [Defendant] through their agents, police and the Surface Transportation Board that they were and are in error blocking" the road (Comp. ¶ 2; Dkt. No. 57 at 18-19.) In addition, Plaintiffs explained at the hearing that they spent a year researching historical deeds and eventually found an 1840 deed which they claim provides Plaintiffs with expressly reserved rights-of-way. (Dkt. No. 57 at 19; see also Compl. ¶ 2; Dkt. No. 29 at 1; Dkt. No. 42 at 2-3.) Defendant, according to Plaintiffs, still could not be convinced to remove the jersey barriers, despite this evidence. (Dkt. No. 57 at 19; Dkt. No. 42 at 3.)

Plaintiffs assert, and Defendant has not disputed, that since Defendant installed the jersey barriers, Plaintiff Lori Baillargeon "has had two heart attacks," after which David Baillargeon "had to take her to the hospital myself over an[ ] icy, bumpy, narrow, muddy and unmaintained road," i.e. , the northern section of Old Wood Road. (Compl. ¶ 2; Dkt. No. 29 at 1-2; see also Dkt. No. 57 at 8.) Plaintiffs also assert that because they cannot obtain fuel delivery, they have had to transport diesel fuel using 5-gallon plastic tubs, paying extra as a result. (Dkt. No. 57 at 21; see also Dkt. No. 42 at 1.) In addition, Plaintiffs contend their property is now essentially worthless, they cannot use any of their various permits (gravel,⁷ campground, auction, and fish farm), and their businesses are failing and they are falling behind on their bills. (Compl. ¶ 3, Ex. K; Dkt. No. 29 at 2.)

Plaintiffs filed this action on October 7, 2019. (Compl.) Their pro se complaint does not include any specific legal claims but, rather, sets forth a factual narrative and requests injunctive relief (namely, the removal of the barriers) and damages. (Id. )⁸ On November 27, 2019, Defendant filed an answer and counterclaim for trespass. (Dkt. No. 17.) On February 7, 2020, the same day as the scheduling conference held before Magistrate Judge Katherine Robertson, Plaintiffs filed their motion for preliminary injunction, which Defendant opposed on March 6, 2020. (Dkt. Nos. 29, 30.) The court, after continuing a March 24, 2020 hearing date, held a hearing on the motion for preliminary injunction on April 28, 2020. (Dkt. Nos. 40, 56.)

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

"A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right." Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc. , 555 U.S. 7, 24, 129 S.Ct. 365, 172 L.Ed.2d 249 (2008). "In each case, courts ‘must balance the competing claims of injury and must consider the effect on each party of the granting or withholding of the requested relief.’ " Id. (quoting Amoco Production Co. v. Village of Gambell, Ak. , 480 U.S. 531, 542, 107 S.Ct. 1396, 94 L.Ed.2d 542 (1987) ). "The purpose of such interim equitable relief is not to conclusively determine the rights of the parties ... but to balance the equities as the litigation moves forward." Trump v. Int'l Refugee Assistance Project , ––– U.S. ––––, 137 S. Ct. 2080, 2087, 198 L.Ed.2d 643 (2017) (internal citation omitted). As such, "[c]rafting a preliminary injunction is an exercise of discretion and judgment, often dependent as much on the equities of a given case as the substance of the legal issues it presents." Id.

In order to...