Humphreys v. United States
| Decision Date | 01 May 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 42052.,42052. |
| Citation | 228 F. Supp. 910 |
| Parties | Lloyd Owen HUMPHREYS, individually and as an officer of the South Los Altos Citizens Committee for the Preservation of Public Transportation, Herman L. Solomon, individually and as an officer of the Woodland Acres Association of Los Altos, Santa Clara County, Claire Bertolone, individually and as an officer of the Branch Line Commuters Association of Santa Clara County, Robert Orrick, individually and as an officer of the Citizens Committee for Public Transportation of Santa Clara County, Santa Clara and San Benito Counties Building and Construction Trades Council, an unincorporated association, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, Defendants, and Southern Pacific Company, County of Santa Clara, City of Los Altos, Intervening Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of California |
Neyhart & Grodin, by Martin J. Rosen, San Francisco, Cal., for plaintiffs.
Robert B. Hummel, Antitrust Div., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., for United States.
Leonard S. Goodman, Interstate Commerce Commission, Washington, D. C., for Interstate Commerce Commission.
Charles W. Burkett, Robert L. Pierce, by Randolph Karr, San Francisco, Cal., for intervenor Southern Pacific Co.
Spencer M. Williams, County Counsel, by Gerald J. Thompson, Deputy County Counsel, San Jose, Cal., for intervening defendant County of Santa Clara.
Anthony A. Lagorio, Los Altos, Cal., for intervening defendant City of Los Altos.
Before HAMLIN, Circuit Judge, and HARRIS and WEIGEL, District Judges.
After proceedings duly had, pursuant to Section 1(18)-(20) of the Interstate Commerce Act, 49 U.S.C.A. § 1 (18)-(20), the Interstate Commerce Commission made and filed its report and order approving in effect the abandonment by Southern Pacific Company of a portion of the Vasona Branch of its railroad, situated in Santa Clara County, California.
Several commuter associations and individuals who appeared in opposition to the abandonment proceedings together with the Santa Clara and San Benito Counties Building and Construction Trades Council now claim to be aggrieved by the Commission's order and have filed the complaint in this cause, under the applicable provisions of Title 28 U.S. C.A., to enjoin, annul and set aside the Commission's report and order. The United States and the Commission answered the complaint. The former neither supported nor opposed the order of the Commission; the latter asked the court to dismiss the complaint and to sustain the decision and order of the Commission. The Southern Pacific Company, the County of Santa Clara and the City of Los Altos intervened as defendants.
A three-judge court was convened, following an initial presentation before a single judge on a motion for a temporary restraining order. The record we have before us consists of the pleadings, the order of the Interstate Commerce Commission made herein, the certified copy of the record before the Interstate Commerce Commission as well as the briefs and exhibits, the record made before this court on the motion for a temporary restraining order, and finally, we have been furnished with briefs and the cause has been orally argued and submitted.
On plaintiffs' motion for a temporary restraining order, the court found, after a lengthy hearing before the Honorable George B. Harris, that removal of tracks on the Vasona Branch Line of the Southern Pacific Railroad would cause irreparable damage to plaintiffs in the event a Three Judge Court should later sustain plaintiffs' contentions. Accordingly, the court restrained removal of tracks or any activity which would dismantle the railroad until such time as a decision on the merits should be handed down by the full court, convened under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2284.
The issue before the court presently is to determine whether the report and order of the Interstate Commerce Commission, Division 3, made on September 23, 1963, which authorized the abandonment of the Vasona Branch Line, is supported by adequate findings of fact which are founded upon substantial evidence. Our review is necessarily a limited one. Interstate Commerce Comm. v. Union Pac. R. Co., 222 U.S. 541, 32 S.Ct. 108, 56 L.Ed. 308; Mississippi Valley Barge Line Co. v. United States, 292 U.S. 282, 54 S.Ct. 692, 78 L.Ed. 1260; United States v. Pierce Auto Freight Lines, 327 U.S. 515, 66 S.Ct. 687, 90 L.Ed. 821; Village of Candor v. United States, D.C., 151 F.Supp. 889.
Plaintiffs, chiefly commuters from Los Gatos to San Francisco and members of the South Los Altos Citizens Committee for Preservation of Public Transportation, initiated this action in order to enjoin and set aside the report and order of Division 3 (Finance Docket No. 22009), which authorized Southern Pacific1 to abandon a portion of its Vasona Branch Line in Santa Clara County. The dispute arises over the operation of two commuter trains which run five days a week between Vasona and San Francisco. The northbound morning train, No. 129, serves the early morning commuters and the southbound train, No. 132, returns them to their homes in Los Gatos or its environs. Approximately 170 persons are served on a daily basis by these trains.
In its conclusion which held that public convenience and necessity would be served by permitting abandonment, Division 3 made certain findings based on its own report or arising out of the report of the Hearing Examiner and the Finance Review Board, consisting of three members. (It is to be noted initially that the latter body, on reviewing the matter, reversed the Hearing Examiner and held that abandonment was not warranted.)
The findings of Division 3 were generally to the effect that the County of Santa Clara required a segment of the Vasona Branch line in order to construct a new Foothill Expressway over the railroad right of way, as well as an interchange between the expressway and the Junipero Serra freeway. Abandonment of the Vasona Branch would inconvenience a minimum of passengers since the Southern Pacific would continue to operate its trains over the main line between San Jose and San Francisco and the railroad would retain 85% of its regular passengers. During the years 1960 and 1961 the railroad lost $21,495 and $20,911 respectively and continued operation would impose a burden on interstate commerce. Division 3 found that commuters would not suffer severe hardship or inconvenience in a strictly local situation and accordingly sustained the petition for abandonment.
Plaintiffs have challenged the findings of the I.C.C. and contend they are not supported by substantial evidence as required by 5 U.S.C.A. § 1009(e) of the Administrative Procedure Act. They assert that the purported losses suffered by the Southern Pacific for 1960 and 1961 are not borne out by an accurate record of passenger revenue and they challenge the revenue predictions for the main line service based on an estimate of 85% retention of passengers and property tax savings.
Plaintiffs question the finding that continued operations will result in a burden on interstate commerce. They point out that the effort to abandon the line arose as an afterthought when Santa Clara County sought to condemn property for an expressway. Losses, if any, were small, they contend, and not such as to warrant abandonment under the standards of Colorado v. United States, 271 U.S. 153, 46 S.Ct. 452, 70 L.Ed. 878, especially in the light of net income of more than $50 million enjoyed by the Southern Pacific in 1961 (and greater revenue realized in the next two years). As against minimal losses, the commission had to weigh the convenience of 170 commuters, many of whom were absolutely dependent on train service and whose only alternative means of transportation would consume daily additional time of up to 1 hour 40 minutes and added monthly costs of $20.
In urging this court to make its order preventing abandonment, plaintiffs placed heavy reliance upon the three judge decision in State of North Carolina v. United States, D.C., 210 F.Supp. 675, with respect to the finding that the "Commission had applied erroneous legal standards in reaching those conclusions." The Court "disagreed with the Commission as to the kind of evidence required to support an order permitting discontinuance of an intrastate passenger train under Sec. 13A(2)."
The reversal by the Supreme Court in Southern Railway v. North Carolina, 376 U.S. 93, 84 S.Ct. 564, 11 L.Ed.2d 541, set at rest plaintiffs' hopes as predicated upon the earlier decision. It is our view that the I.C.C. applied the correct legal standard in the light of this recent pronouncement of the Supreme Court.
With respect to the primary issue, i. e., whether the findings of the Interstate Commerce Commission are adequate and are supported by substantial evidence: This court concludes and finds after a complete review of the record, including the certified copy of the transcript before the Commission, that there is sufficient evidence to support the findings.
Plaintiffs, if unsuccessful in obtaining an order annulling and enjoining the order of the I.C.C. request in the alternative that the court remand the cause to the Commission. They charge S.P. with bad faith based upon a series of applications and events centering around and relating to the alternative service to be provided by the railroad regarding train No. 132 ().
The hearing before the I.C.C. examiner and the ultimate disposition of the case disclose that great significance was placed on the fact that the 170 daily commuters on the Vasona Branch line would be well served by train No. 134 on the main line, which stops at the several stations within short driving distances of the homes of the commuters. (As to the time required to reach stops at Sunnyvale, Mountain View and California Street, all of which are east of the homes of the commuters and necessitate crossing...
To continue reading
Request your trial