Union Pac. R.R. Co. v. Harris County

• Decision Date: 17 May 2011
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. H–11–0121.
• Citation: 790 F.Supp.2d 568
• Parties: UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, Plaintiff,v.HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas

790 F.Supp.2d 568

UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, Plaintiff,

v.HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS, Defendant.

Civil Action No. H–11–0121.

United States District Court,S.D. Texas,Houston Division.

May 17, 2011.

John Hatchett McFarland, Joyce, McFarland + McFarland LLP, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff.Bobby Nick Turner, George Andrew Nachtigall, Houston, TX, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

SIM LAKE, District Judge.

Union Pacific Railroad Company (“Union Pacific”) brings this action against Harris County, Texas (“Harris County”), seeking an injunction to prevent Harris County from constructing a railroad crossing over tracks that are owned and used by Union Pacific and a declaratory judgment with respect to Harris County's right to construct the crossing. Pending before the court is Defendant Harris County's Motion to Dismiss (Docket Entry No. 5), which argues that dismissal is warranted pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(c). For the reasons explained below, the motion to dismiss will be denied.

I. Factual and Procedural Background

A. Underlying Facts

Union Pacific operates and maintains a railroad-track segment known as the Eureka Subdivision (“Eureka Sub”), which extends from the outskirts of Houston northwest to Navasota, Texas.¹ A portion of the Eureka Sub runs through Harris County, adjacent to Highway 290.² Union Pacific uses the Eureka Sub primarily to facilitate the movement of two types of trains out of Houston: (1) manifest trains, which carry virtually any type of commodity, including dangerous chemicals, and (2) unit-rock trains, which carry rock from quarries to various delivery points.³

Union Pacific also uses a portion of the Eureka Sub for staging operations in which a train is moved to a section of track and stopped to allow for the movement of another train.⁴ Under the existing conditions the Eureka Sub has a portion of track stretching over 13,000 feet between House Hahl Road and Fairfield Road that is devoid of railroad crossings, making it an optimal location for staging operations.⁵ The existing conditions also allow for the construction of a “siding,” or support rail, that would facilitate Union Pacific's plans to employ longer unit-rock trains to meet increasing customer demands.⁶

Harris County, as part of a roadway expansion project,⁷ intends to construct railroad crossings at several points along Union Pacific's Eureka Sub, including where the track intersects with Mason Road (the “Mason Road crossing”).⁸ The Mason Road crossing is designed to be an “at-grade crossing,” which means that vehicles will cross the tracks at the same level on which the tracks are located, as opposed to traveling over or under ⁹ the railroad tracks.¹⁰ According to Harris County's plans the Mason Road crossing will span six traffic lanes (four through lanes and two turning lanes) and will be equipped with an electronically operated four-quad gate system to warn drivers of oncoming trains.¹¹

B. Harris County's Acquisition of a Perpetual Easement

It is undisputed that Harris County possesses a perpetual easement for the property on which the proposed Mason Road crossing would be situated, including the necessary portion of Union Pacific's track. The Harris County Commissioners Court passed an order declaring that such an easement was warranted by public necessity,¹² but Harris County and Union Pacific were unable to reach an agreement with respect to the price of the land and the specifications of the crossing.¹³ Harris County subsequently initiated a condemnation action against Union Pacific in the Harris County Civil Court at Law on April 5, 2010, seeking (1) the appointment of three special commissioners to determine the appropriate value of the condemned property, (2) a writ of possession of the condemned property upon payment for the property, and (3) a declaration that Harris County is the owner of the interest in the condemned property.¹⁴

On August 27, 2010, after neither party filed timely objections to the findings of the court-appointed special commissioners, the county court at law issued a final judgment that (1) ordered Harris County to pay Union Pacific $10,446 for the condemned property; (2) divested Union Pacific of and vested Harris County with a perpetual easement “for road purposes” “in, to, on, over, across and under” the condemned property, which included the portion of Union Pacific's track necessary to facilitate the Mason Road crossing; and (3) ordered a writ of possession to be issued in favor of Harris County. ¹⁵

C. Procedural Background

Union Pacific brought this action seeking (1) a “preliminary injunction to prevent Harris County from proceeding with the construction of an unapproved railroad crossing at Mason Road or otherwise interfering with Union Pacific's operations on the Tract of land described in [the Final Judgment vesting Harris County with a perpetual easement]” and (2) a declaratory judgment that “[Harris County] may not interfere with Union Pacific's operations on the condemned tract without Union Pacific's consent or the approval of the proposed crossing by the Surface Transportation Board.” ¹⁶

Union Pacific alleges that the court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because the action arises under a federal statute, the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act of 1995 (“ICCTA”),¹⁷ 49 U.S.C. § 10101 et seq.¹⁸ Union Pacific alleges that because the ICCTA grants the Surface Transportation Board (“STB”) “exclusive jurisdiction over actions regulating or interfering with rail carrier transportation or the construction or operation of rail tracks or facilities,” the ICCTA preempts the issue of whether Harris County's property rights derived from its perpetual easement include the right “to build a complex railroad crossing” of its choosing, “irrespective of federal requirements or coordination with Union Pacific's safety standards and commercial necessities.” ¹⁹ Union Pacific further alleges that Harris County's proposed Mason Road crossing will “interfere[ ] with Union Pacific's construction and operation of its railroad” and will “create[ ] unnecessary and undue safety risks.” ²⁰

Harris County seeks dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing that Harris County's proposed plan to exercise its state-law property rights is not preempted because it only incidentally affects railroad transportation under these circumstances and because it does not impede or interfere with Union Pacific's rail operations, pose an undue safety risk, or otherwise unreasonably burden rail transportation.²¹ Alternatively, Harris County (1) moves for judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rule 12(c) on grounds that Union Pacific's claims are barred under the doctrine of res judicata because it could have raised them as a defense in the condemnation proceeding but failed to do so, and (2) argues that the court should exercise discretion and dismiss Union Pacific's claim for a declaratory judgment.²²

II. Rule 12(b)(1) Motion to Dismiss

A. 12 (b)(1) Standard

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) permits parties to challenge a district court's subject matter jurisdiction. “A case is properly dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction when the court lacks the statutory or constitutional power to adjudicate the case.” Home Builders Ass'n of Miss., Inc. v. City of Madison, Miss., 143 F.3d 1006, 1010 (5th Cir.1998). The court must dismiss the action if it finds that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3).

As the party asserting federal jurisdiction, Union Pacific bears the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that the court has jurisdiction. New Orleans & Gulf Coast Ry. Co. v. Barrois, 533 F.3d 321, 327 (5th Cir.2008); Ramming v. United States, 281 F.3d 158, 161 (5th Cir.2001), cert. denied, 536 U.S. 960, 122 S.Ct. 2665, 153 L.Ed.2d 839 (2002). The court may find that subject matter jurisdiction is lacking based on “(1) the complaint alone; (2) the complaint supplemented by undisputed facts evidenced in the record; or (3) the complaint supplemented by undisputed facts plus the court's resolution of disputed facts.” Randall D. Wolcott, M.D., P.A. v. Sebelius, 635 F.3d 757, 762 (5th Cir.2011) (quoting Ramming, 281 F.3d at 161). When a party challenges the court's subject matter jurisdiction based only on the complaint, it is a “facial attack,” and the court scrutinizes the pleadings, taking the allegations as true, to determine whether the claimant has sufficiently alleged subject matter jurisdiction. Menchaca v. Chrysler Credit Corp., 613 F.2d 507, 511 (5th Cir.1980); Santerre v. Agip Petroleum Co., 45 F.Supp.2d 558, 566 (S.D.Tex.1999). When a facial attack is involved, “a motion under 12(b) (1) should be granted only if it appears that the plaintiff cannot prove any set of facts in support of its claim that would entitle it to relief.” Santerre, 45 F.Supp.2d at 566 (quoting Home Builders, 143 F.3d at 1010).

When a party challenges the court's subject-matter jurisdiction based on facts outside the complaint it is a “factual attack,” and the court may consider matters that go beyond the pleadings, such as affidavits and testimony. Menchaca, 613 F.2d at 511; Williamson v. Tucker, 645 F.2d 404, 413 (5th Cir.1981). In a factual attack, a court's power to make findings of fact and to weigh the evidence turns on whether the jurisdictional challenge also implicates the merits of the plaintiff's cause of action. Taylor v. Dam, 244 F.Supp.2d 747, 753 (S.D.Tex.2003); In re Eckstein Marine Serv., LLC, 2010 WL 3303640, at *1 (S.D.Tex. Aug. 19, 2010). If the facts necessary to sustain jurisdiction do not implicate the merits of the plaintiff's cause of action, the court is free to consider undisputed facts and to resolve disputed facts “to satisfy itself as to the existence of its power to hear the case.” Williamson, 645 F.2d at 413. In contrast,...