Melton Props., LLC. v. Ill. Cent. R.R.

Decision Date29 September 2020
Docket NumberNO. 4:18-CV-79-DMB-JMV,4:18-CV-79-DMB-JMV
PartiesMELTON PROPERTIES, LLC., et al. PLAINTIFFS v. ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY, et al. DEFENDANTS
CourtU.S. District Court — Northern District of Mississippi
OPINION AND ORDER

Before the Court are "Illinois Central Railroad Company's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Claims Related to Remediation," Doc. #108; Illinois Central's motion to strike four exhibits the plaintiffs' submitted in response, Doc. #177; and the plaintiffs' motion to supplement their response, Doc. #180.

IProcedural History

On March 27, 2018, Melton Properties, LLC; Floyd M. Melton, Jr.; Floyd M. Melton III; Moss B. Melton; McMillan Acres; Danny Hargett; Jane Hart McMillan Hargett; and David Hargett filed this action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi against Illinois Central Railroad Company; Canadian National Railway; Union Tank Car Company, Inc.; and certain fictitious parties. Doc. #1. The complaint, as amended,1 asserted state and federal claims arising from a toxic spill caused by a March 30, 2015, derailment of a railcar owned by Union Tank, which was being transported by "Illinois Central and/or Canadian National" on tracks "owned by Illinois Central and/or Canadian National." Doc. #92 at ¶¶ 14-15, 36-114. The plaintiffs, all property owners or farmers near the site of the spill in Leflore County, Mississippi(known as the Minter City site), also asserted claims related to the remediation of the spill. Id. at ¶¶ 69-72.

On May 22, 2018, the plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion to stay "all proceedings in this matter until such time as Plaintiffs have exhausted their administrative remedies." Doc. #20 at 4. As grounds for the stay, the plaintiffs represented that the Mississippi Commission on Environmental Quality

has administrative authority to conduct a hearing on Plaintiffs' grievances with the MDEQ-approved Corrective Action Plan. Miss. Code Ann. §§ 49-17-13, 49-17-17, and 49-17-35. Many of Plaintiffs' claims for injunctive relief in this action, seeking adequate and proper cleanup of the harmful chemicals spilled due to the train derailment, are subject to the Commission's administrative process. See id. The Commission administrative process has been duly invoked and is presently running its course.

Id. at 2. The motion further stated, "while Plaintiffs' Complaint before this Court includes tort claims, this litigation should be subject to a general stay until the Commission's process is complete because the Complaint asserts claims which are clearly within the primary jurisdiction of the Commission." Id. at 3. The same day they filed the motion to stay, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed Union Tank Car Company. Doc. #19.

On June 6, 2018, United States Magistrate Judge Jane M. Virden granted the motion to stay in part, staying the "case for the earlier of a 60-day period from the date of this Order or the completion of the Mississippi Commission on Environmental Quality's hearing on the Plaintiffs' claims regarding the Corrective Action Plan for Plaintiffs' property." Doc. #22 at 1. Judge Virden's order noted that if the order expired as a result of the sixty-day deadline, "the parties may move for a further stay, premised on legal authorities." Id.

On August 3, 2018, the plaintiffs, relying on the same legal authorities as their initial motion, filed a second unopposed motion to stay. Doc. #26. Five days later, Judge Virden grantedthe motion to stay in part, "in accordance with the court's discussion from the bench [at an August 7, 2018] motion hearing." Judge Virden's text order noted that "[t]he details of the stay, as granted, will be formalized in the Case Management Order."

On August 23, 2018, Canadian National filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Doc. #31. Illinois Central answered the complaint on August 29, 2018. Doc. #34. On November 14, 2019, the Court dismissed Canadian National for lack of personal jurisdiction. Doc. #93.

On February 11, 2020, Illinois Central filed a "Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Claims Related to Remediation." Doc. #108. After receiving an extension to respond to the motion to dismiss, Doc. #114, the plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint on these grounds:

[S]ince the filing of the original Complaint, additional events have transpired including the dismissal of Canadian National Railway and Union Tank Car Company, Inc., and Defendant Illinois Central Railroad Company has failed to comply with the MDEQ-approved Corrective Action Plan. Thus, the Plaintiffs desire, and think it necessary, to reflect these additional facts and to clarify allegations previously made, pursuant to F.R.C.P. 15, which provides that leave to amend shall be freely given.

Doc. #119 at 1. On March 9, 2020, Judge Virden granted the plaintiffs' motion to amend. The second amended complaint was filed the same day. Doc. #127. The plaintiffs responded to the motion to dismiss one day later. Doc. #128.

On March 23, 2020, Illinois Central filed an answer to the second amended complaint. Doc. #139. It replied in support of its motion to dismiss two days later. Doc. #140.

On June 22, 2020, the plaintiffs filed four supplemental exhibits to their response to the motion to dismiss. See Docs. #176-1, #176-2, #176-3, #176-4. Illinois Central promptly moved to strike these exhibits as untimely. Doc. #177. The plaintiffs filed a response to the motion tostrike which conceded that the motion should be granted. Doc. #179. The plaintiffs also filed a motion for leave to file as supplemental exhibits to their response the same documents they untimely filed on June 22, Doc. #180, which Illinois Central opposes in part, Doc. #187.

IIMotion to Strike and Motion to Supplement

In its motion to strike, Illinois Central argues that "[t]he applicable case law dictates that once the briefing is closed on a motion a party must seek and obtain leave of court before filing a surreply or otherwise supplementing the record." Doc. #177 at 2. Because the plaintiffs do not dispute that this is the case or that the June 22 supplemental exhibits were filed without leave and should be stricken, the motion to strike these documents is granted.

Turning to the plaintiffs' motion to supplement, the plaintiffs seek leave to file four exhibits—labeled D through G and attached to the motion to supplement—in support of their motion to dismiss. Doc. #181. As grounds, the plaintiffs represent that the documents are relevant to the ongoing MDEQ regulatory proceedings relevant to this action, and that the evidence did not exist at the time their initial response was filed. Id. at 2-3.

Illinois Central does not oppose the motion to the extent it seeks to introduce proposed exhibits D, E, and F. Doc. #188 at 2. However, Illinois Central argues that proposed Exhibit G, which is a letter from the plaintiffs' counsel to MDEQ, is simply "a backdoor attempt to submit a surreply supporting Plaintiffs' argument concerning the alleged futility of the MDEQ administrative process." Id. at 3. Illinois Central argues that because there are no grounds justifying a surreply, proposed Exhibit G should not be allowed. Id.at 4. Illinois Central further argues that if the Court decides to allow submission of Exhibit G, it should consider two additional documents—"MDEQ's July 10, 2020 letter responding to ICRR's Pilot Study and Soil Sampling Work Plan" and MDEQ's response to proposed Exhibit G. Id.

In reply, the plaintiffs argue that proposed Exhibit G is not intended to advance a new argument but is simply intended to "illustrate[] the Meltons' good-faith attempts to seek efficient action from MDEQ and ICRR, which is an issue already argued in the briefing." Doc. #190 at 2. The plaintiffs further "agree with ICRR that the July 10, 2020 and July 21, 2020 letters from MDEQ should be added to the record as well." Id. at 3 (record citation omitted).

Motions to supplement the record are committed to the discretion of the district court. Performance Autoplex II Ltd. v. Mid-Continent Cas. Co., 322 F.3d 847, 854 (5th Cir. 2003). In considering whether to supplement the record, a court should consider "(1) the moving party's reasons for not originally submitting the evidence; (2) the importance of the omitted evidence to the moving party's case; (3) whether the evidence was previously available to the non-moving party when it responded to the ... motion; and (4) the likelihood of unfair prejudice to the non-moving party if the evidence is accepted." Id. at 862.

Here, as explained below, the status of the ongoing MDEQ administrative proceeding is relevant to issues raised in the plaintiffs' response. Furthermore, because the letters did not exist at the time the response was filed, they were not then previously available to the plaintiffs. Finally, because the Court will also consider the MDEQ letters proffered by Illinois Central, there will be no prejudice to Illinois Central in allowing the supplementation. For these reasons, the plaintiffs' motion to supplement is granted.

IIICharacter of Illinois Central's Motion to Dismiss

Although not clearly delineated in its motion to dismiss, Illinois Central appears to seek dismissal of the remediation related claims (1) as unripe under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), Doc. #109 at 12; (2) "under the primary jurisdiction and/or Burford abstention doctrines," id. at 16; and (3) as unexhausted, id. As an alternative, Illinois Central seeks a stay until theplaintiffs exhaust their administrative remedies. Id. at 18. Illinois Central also moves to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction the plaintiffs' claims under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ("RCRA") and the Clean Water Act ("CWA") as improperly noticed, and to dismiss the plaintiffs' CWA claim for failure to allege an ongoing violation.2 Id. at 4-5.

It is axiomatic that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and Rule 12(b)(6) are...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT