Mehl v. Canadian Pacific Ry., Ltd.

• Decision Date: 06 March 2006
• Docket Number: No. 4:02-CV-009.,4:02-CV-009.
• Citation: 417 F.Supp.2d 1104
• Parties: Trina MEHL, Jason Olsen, Susan Olsen, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY, LIITED and its wholly owned subsidiary Canadian Pacific Railway Company, and Soo Line Railroad Company, d/b/a Canadian Pacific Railway, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of North Dakota

417 F.Supp.2d 1104

Trina MEHL, Jason Olsen, Susan Olsen, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY, LIITED and its wholly owned subsidiary Canadian Pacific Railway Company, and Soo Line Railroad Company, d/b/a Canadian Pacific Railway, Defendants.

No. 4:02-CV-009.

United States District Court, D. North Dakota, Northwestern Division.

March 6, 2006.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Daniel E. Becnel, Jr., Darryl J. Becnel, Daniel E. Becnel, Jr. Law Firm, Reserve, LA, David M. Cialkowski, John Gordon Rudd, Jr., Ronald S. Goldser, Zimmerman Reed, PLLP, Minneapolis, MN, Mike J. Miller, Stacey Elizabeth Tjon, Solberg Stewart Miller Johnson Tjon Kennelly Ltd., Fargo, ND, for Plaintiffs.

James S. Hill, Zuger, Kirmis & Smith, Bismarck, ND, Julie H. Firestone, Kevin M. Decker, Matthew D. Forsgren, Scott G. Knudson, Timothy R. Thornton, Briggs & Morgan, Minneapolis, MN, Stephen W. Plambeck, Nilles Law Firm, Fargo, ND, for Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS

DANIEL L. HOVLAND, Chief Judge.

Before the Court is the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss filed on August 16, 2005. On October 6, 2005, the Plaintiffs filed their opposition to the motion. The Defendants filed a reply brief on October 21, 2005, and supplemental briefs on December 12 and 21, 2005. The Plaintiffs filed a supplemental response brief on January 13, 2006.¹ For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants the Defendants' motion.

I. BACKGROUND

This matter stems from the derailment of a Canadian Pacific Railway freight train near Minot, North Dakota, on January 18, 2002. Several damaged tanker cars released anhydrous ammonia into the air. The Plaintiffs allege, in part, that a portion of the continuous welded rail (CWR) track failed causing the derailment. On January 25, 2002, the Plaintiffs filed suit on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated persons, claiming that the defendant, Canadian Pacific Railway (CP Rail), was responsible for the personal injuries and property damage suffered because of the train derailment. On May 4, 2005, the Court granted, in part, the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Plaintiffs' complaint sets forth seven different claims: (1) negligence, (2) private nuisance, (3) public nuisance, (4) trespass on land, (5) strict liability, (6) intentional infliction of emotional distress, and (7) negligence per se. See Second Amended Class Action Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial (Docket No. 162).

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

The defendant, CP Rail, filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The standard for a district court to employ in ruling on a motion to dismiss is well-established. Crumpley-Patterson v. Trinity Lutheran Hosp., 388 F.3d 588, 590 (8th Cir.2004). "A district court must accept the allegations contained in the complaint as true, and all reasonable inferences from the complaint must be drawn in favor of the nonmoving party." Id. (citing Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73, 104 S.Ct. 2229, 81 L.Ed.2d 59 (1984); Hafley v. Lohman, 90 F.3d 264, 266 (8th Cir.1996)). "[D]ismissal is inappropriate `unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.'" McCormack v. Citibank, N.A., 979 F.2d 643, 646 (8th Cir.1992) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957)). "A motion to dismiss should be granted `as a practical matter ... only in the unusual case in which there is some insuperable bar to relief.'" Strand v. Diversified Collection Service, Inc., 380 F.3d 316, 317 (8th Cir.2004) (citing Frey v. Herculaneum, 44 F.3d 667, 671 (8th Cir.1995) (quoting Bramlet v. Wilson, 495 F.2d 714, 716 (8th Cir.1974))). It is clear under the Federal Rules that it is not necessary to plead every fact with formalistic particularity. BJC Health System v. Columbia Cas. Co., 348 F.3d 685, 688 (8th Cir.2003). "A pleading which sets forth a claim for relief ... shall contain a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief...." Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a).

III. LEGAL DISCUSSION

CP Rail contends that the Eighth Circuit's federal preemption precedent dictates dismissal of the Plaintiffs' claims. CP Rail cites to the recent Eighth Circuit case of In re Derailment Cases, 416 F.3d 787 (8th Cir.2005) (hereinafter referred to as the "Scottsbluff" case) to support its proposition that the Plaintiffs' claims are preempted by federal law which governs railroad safety.

A. FEDERAL PREEMPTION DOCTRINE

The Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution provides that the laws of the United States "shall be the supreme law of the land." U.S. Const. Art VI, cl. 2. It is well-established that Congress possesses the power to preempt state law. A federal agency acting within the scope of its congressionally delegated authority may also preempt state law. Louisiana Pub. Serv. Comm. v. Fed. Commc'n Comm., 476 U.S. 355, 369, 106 S.Ct. 1890, 90 L.Ed.2d 369 (1986). Thus, state law is preempted when it conflicts with or frustrates federal law.

The Federal Railroad Safety Act (FRSA) was enacted in 1970 "to promote safety in every area of railroad operations and reduce railroad-related accidents and incidents." Norfolk So. Ry. Co. v. Shanklin, 529 U.S. 344, 347, 120 S.Ct. 1467, 146 L.Ed.2d 374 (2000).² The FRSA gives the Secretary of Transportation broad powers to prescribe, as necessary, appropriate rules, regulations, orders, and standards for all areas of railroad safety. CSX Transp., Inc. v. Easterwood, 507 U.S. 658, 662, 113 S.Ct. 1732, 123 L.Ed.2d 387 (1993). The FRSA also includes express saving and preemption clauses:

Laws, regulations, and orders related to railroad safety and laws, regulations, and orders related to railroad security shall be nationally uniform to the extent practicable. A State may adopt or continue in force a law, regulation, or order related to railroad safety or security until the Secretary of Transportation (with respect to railroad safety matters), or the Secretary of Homeland Security (with respect to railroad security matters), prescribes a regulation or issues an order covering the subject matter of the State requirement. A State may adopt or continue in force an additional or more stringent law, regulation, or order related to railroad safety or security when the law, regulation, or order—

(1) is necessary to eliminate or reduce an essentially local safety or security hazard;

(2) is not incompatible with a law, regulation, or order of the United States Government; and

(3) does not unreasonably burden interstate commerce.

49 U.S.C. § 20106 (2005). When a federal statute contains an express preemption clause, as it does here, the Court must focus on the plain wording of the clause, since it contains the best evidence of the scope of Congress' preemptive intent. CSX Transp., Inc. v. Easterwood, 507 U.S. 658, 664, 113 S.Ct. 1732, 123 L.Ed.2d 387 (1993).

Courts have been faced with interpreting the preemptive force of the Federal Railroad Safety Act on numerous occasions. "The language of the FRSA's pre-emption provision dictates that, to preempt state law, the federal regulation must `cover' the same subject matter, and not merely `touch upon' or `relate to that subject matter.'" Norfolk So. Ry. Co. v. Shanklin, 529 U.S. 344, 351, 120 S.Ct. 1467, 146 L.Ed.2d 374 (2000). Preemption will lie only if the federal regulations substantially subsume the subject matter of the relevant state law. Norfolk So. Ry. Co. v. Shanklin, 529 U.S. 344, 352, 120 S.Ct. 1467, 146 L.Ed.2d 374 (2000).

To prevail on the claim that the regulations have pre-emptive effect, [the plaintiff] must establish more than that they "touch upon" or "relate to" that subject matter, for "covering" is a more restrictive term which indicates that pre-emption will lie only if the federal regulations substantially subsume the subject matter of the relevant state law.

CSX Transp., Inc. v. Easterwood, 507 U.S. 658, 664, 113 S.Ct. 1732, 123 L.Ed.2d 387 (1993) (internal citations omitted).

The determination of whether state law is preempted by federal law does not concern an examination of the compliance with or the adequacy of the federal regulation. See Norfolk So. Ry. Co. v. Shanklin, 529 U.S. 344, 357-58, 120 S.Ct. 1467, 146 L.Ed.2d 374 (2000); see also Kalan Enter. L.L.C. v. BNSF Ry. Co., 415 F.Supp.2d 977, 980-81, 2006 WL 348340, *2 (D.Minn. 2006); Ouellette v. Union Tank Car Co., 902 F.Supp. 5, 10 (D.Mass.1995) (finding the FRSA's preemption language does not differentiate between instances of compliance and non-compliance). Nor does it involve an inquiry into the purpose of the regulation. CSX Transp., Inc. v. Easterwood, 507 U.S. 658, 675, 113 S.Ct. 1732, 123 L.Ed.2d 387 (1993). The United States Supreme Court has held that state common law falls within the scope of the broad category of "law, rule, regulation, order, or standard relating to railroad safety." CSX Transp., Inc. v. Easterwood, 507 U.S. 658, 664, 113 S.Ct. 1732, 123 L.Ed.2d 387 (1993).

Courts have held that several provisions of the FRSA preempt state law. See e.g., Norfolk So. Ry. Co. v. Shanklin, 529 U.S. 344, 347, 120 S.Ct. 1467, 146 L.Ed.2d 374 (2000) (holding that 49 C.F.R. §§ 646.214(b)(3) and (4) covered the subject matter of the adequacy of warning devices installed with the participation of federal funds); CSX Transp., Inc. v. Easterwood, 507 U.S. 658, 676, 113 S.Ct. 1732, 123 L.Ed.2d 387 (1993) (holding that 49 C.F.R. § 213.9 covered the subject matter of claims alleging excessive speed); CSX Transp., Inc. v. Williams, 406 F.3d 667 (D.C.Cir.2005) (holding, in the context of a motion for preliminary injunction, that the safe harbor provision of 49 U.S.C. § 20106 did not apply to the District of Columbia's Terrorism Prevention in Hazardous Materials...