Belt Ry. Co. of Chi. v. Weglarz Hotel III, L.L.C.
| Decision Date | 24 November 2020 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 18 C 7361 |
| Parties | THE BELT RAILWAY COMPANY OF CHICAGO, Plaintiff, v. WEGLARZ HOTEL III, L.L.C., WEGLARZ HOTEL IV, L.L.C., WEGLARZ HOTEL V, L.L.C., and KATIE PAPADIMITRIU, CARRIE ZALEWSKI, U-JUNG CHOE, CYNTHIA SANTOS, and BRENDA CARTER, MEMBERS OF THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITIES AND NOT AS INDIVIDUALS, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
Hon. Jorge L. Alonso
Plaintiff, the Belt Railway Company of Chicago, brings this suit against Defendants, Weglarz Hotel III, L.L.C., Weglarz Hotel IV, L.L.C., Weglarz Hotel V, L.L.C., and all members of the Illinois Pollution Control Board,1 seeking injunctive and declaratory relief on constitutional grounds effectively to bar defendants from enforcing state noise regulations. The parties have filed cross-motions for summary judgment, and Plaintiff has also filed a Daubert motion to strike Defendants' expert. For the reasons that follow, the Court grants in part and denies in part Defendants' motion for summary judgment. The Court denies both Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and Plaintiff's Daubert motion.
Plaintiff, the Belt Railway Company of Chicago ("BRC"), is a "private intermediate switching terminal railroad company" that operates a 786-acre "clearing yard" located just outside Chicago in the Village of Bedford Park, Illinois. (Pl.'s LR 56.1 Resp. at ¶¶ 2, 9, ECF No. 65.) BRC's clearing yard is used to sort freight trains. The clearing yard receives freight trains from various rail carriers from across the country, separates the trains and organizes the individual rail cars based on where the cars need to go next, and then forms new freight trains accordingly. (Defs.' LR 56.1 Resp. at ¶¶ 4-6, ECF No. 67.) This process is generally known as "switching." (Id. at ¶ 4.) BRC "plays a key role in the United States' rail network" because it is "the highest volume intermediate rail switching operation in North America," with thousands of rail cars passing through its clearing yard every day. (Id. at ¶¶ 8-10.)
Defendants, Weglarz's Hotel III, L.L.C., Weglarz Hotel IV, L.L.C., Weglarz Hotel V, L.L.C. (collectively "Weglarz"), together operate three hotels located on the southwest side of Chicago. (ECF No. 65 at ¶¶ 1, 6.) The hotels are located just north of the eastern portion of BRC's clearing yard, or more specifically, just north of BRC's "East Classification Yard." (Id. at ¶ 10.)
At its clearing yard, BRC uses a sophisticated system of what are known as "retarders," which are pieces of safety equipment used to slow down rail cars as they are sorted; their purpose is to prevent rail cars from colliding, derailing, or otherwise striking an employee or property. (ECF No. 67 at ¶¶ 19-21.) BRC uses two types of retarders: "active retarders" and "inert retarders." (ECF No. 65 at ¶¶ 13-14.) An inert retarder is a steel, spring-loaded device placed along the tracks that squeezes a rail car's wheels as the rail car moves through it, thereby slowing the rail car down. (ECF No. 67 at ¶¶ 19-21.) The resulting friction creates a certain squealing sound. (ECF No. 65 at ¶ 14.)
Sometime between 2013 and 2015, BRC began installing a second set of inert retarders on certain tracks in its East Classification Yard. (Id. at ¶¶ 15-16.)2 This project was prompted by a guidance memorandum issued by the Federal Railroad Authority in March 2010, but BRC's choice to install a second set of inert retarders was discretionary. The guidance memorandum did not require the project. (Id. at ¶¶ 18-19.)
In the spring of 2014, Weglarz's staff and guests began complaining of excessive noise; this was the first time Weglarz received such complaints since it opened its hotels. (Id. at ¶ 20.) Weglarz retained a noise expert, Bowlby and Associates, Inc., which conducted an investigation and issued a report; the report concluded that BRC's use of its double inert retarders was violating noise emission standards set by regulations promulgated under the Illinois Environmental Protection Act ("IEPA"). (Id.)
In 2018, Weglarz filed a complaint before the Illinois Pollution Control Board ("PCB"), which is responsible for enforcing the IEPA. (See id. at ¶¶ 3, 23; see also Pl.'s Compl., Ex. B at 12-16, ECF No. 1.) In its complaint, Weglarz alleges that BRC has violated the applicable noise emissions standards through its use of double inert retarders. (ECF No. 65 at ¶¶ 11-13, 24.) Weglarz's complaint asks the PCB: (1) to find that BRC violates the IEPA and has created a public nuisance through violations of the IEPA and its regulations; (2) to direct BRC to stop using inert retarders in its East Classification Yard in a manner that violates the IEPA; and (3) to impose civil penalties, as permitted by the IEPA. (Id. at ¶ 25.)
Before the PCB adjudicated Weglarz's complaint,3 BRC filed the instant suit before this Court, naming as defendants Weglarz and all members of the PCB in their official capacity. BRC seeks declaratory and injunctive relief against defendants, arguing that any action by the PCB on Weglarz's Complaint is preempted by the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act("ICCTA"), 49 U.S.C. § 10501(b) (Count I), or in the alternative, would violate the U.S. Constitution's Commerce Clause, Art. I, § 8. (ECF No. 1 at ¶¶ 16-30.) BRC and Weglarz now file cross-motions for summary judgment as to the ICCTA preemption issue, and Weglarz also moves for summary judgment on BRC's claim relating to the Commerce Clause. (See generally Pl.'s Mot. for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 57; see also Defs.' Mot. for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 53.) The PCB defendants take no position on the merits of BRC's claims here. (See ECF No. 32 at 1-2.)4
"The court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); Wackett v. City of Beaver Dam, 642 F.3d 578, 581 (7th Cir. 2011). A genuine dispute of material fact exists if "the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S. Ct. 2505, 91 L. Ed.2d 202 (1986). At the summary judgment stage, a court does not make credibility determinations, weigh evidence, or decide which inferences to draw from the facts; those are jury functions. See Gibbs v. Lomas, 755 F.3d 529, 536 (7th Cir. 2014). Rather, a court construes the evidence and all inferences that reasonably can be drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. See Kvapil v. Chippewa Cty., 752 F.3d 708, 712 (7th Cir. 2014). The Court applies these "ordinary standard for summary judgment" in the same way whether one or both parties move for summary judgment; when the parties file cross-motions, the Court treats each motion individually, "constru[ing] the evidence and all reasonable inferences in favor of the party against whom the motion under consideration is made." Blow v. Bijora, Inc., 855 F.3d 793, 797 (7th Cir. 2017); see Premcor USA, Inc. v. American Home Assurance Co., 400 F.3d 523, 526-27 (7th Cir. 2005).
In Count I of the complaint, BRC asks this Court to enjoin any potential state action by defendants that would affect BRC's use of double inert retarders in its clearing yard on the grounds that such action is preempted by the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act of 1995 ("ICCTA"), 49 U.S.C. § 10501(b). Both parties move for summary judgment on Count I, and Weglarz also moves for summary judgment on Count II, in which BRC also asks the Court to enjoin any action by defendants on the alternative grounds that such action would violate the Commerce Clause, Art. I, § 8. The Court addresses each count and then turns to BRC's Daubert motion to strike Weglarz's expert, Ralph Lee Meadows.
The Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution states the Constitution and federal laws are "the supreme Law of the Land . . . Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." U.S. Const., Art. VI, cl. 2. In other words, federal law "preempts state laws that interfere with, orare contrary to, federal law." Union Pac. R. Co. v. Chicago Transit Auth., 647 F.3d 675, 678 (7th Cir. 2011) (quoting Boomer v. AT&T Corp., 309 F.3d 404, 417 (7th Cir. 2002)).
The ICCTA, like many federal statutes, contains an express preemption provision that delineates the extent to which it preempts state law. The ICCTA created the Surface Transportation Board ("STB") and conferred upon the STB exclusive jurisdiction over the regulation of "rail transportation." 49 U.S.C. § 10501(b). "Transportation" is defined broadly to include any "property, facility, instrumentality, or equipment of any kind related to the movement of . . . property . . . by rail . . . ." 49 U.S.C. § 10102(9)(A). The ICCTA further states that "the remedies provided under [49 U.S.C. §§ 10101-11908] with respect to regulation of rail transportation are exclusive and preempt the remedies provided under Federal or State law." 49 U.S.C. § 10501(b).
Seizing on this language, BRC contends summary judgment on Count I is appropriate because § 10501(b) of the ICCTA preempts state enforcement of the IEPA and its noise regulations. Weglarz, on the other hand, argues summary judgment in their favor is appropriate for either of two reasons. First, Weglarz argues that the federal Noise Control Act ("NCA"), 42 U.S.C. § 4901 et seq.—not the ICCTA—governs the preemption analysis and that the NCA does not preempt the PCB from enforcing state noise regulations. Second, Weglarz argues that, even if the ICCTA governs, it does not preempt the PCB from acting under these circumstances. The Court first addresses the relationship between the NCA and ICCTA before turning to the parties' arguments regarding ICCTA preemption.
The NCA and its implementing...
To continue reading
Request your trial