central counties of council did you raise your voice a bit microphones don't do much to amplify and there's an awful lot of fan noise from up there i'll try to see the case involves i sensually tory judgement in the hendrick circuit court back in eighty ninety four ninety three ninety four which resulted in a declar and involved three counties the ownership of the underlying properties was and sometimes and land owners sometimes in their road actually purchased  fee titles land the spot in the territory judgment resolved that any court or located on this on a piece of property which was less than a fee ownership of the railroad flows the property of the underlying owner and that was resolved with the contract refer to the contract stipulated judgment in the court or judgment action and that stipulation so if it really isn't necessary to repeat all the facts ok your time is short ok let me let me ask you have you asked the surface transportation board to direct c s x to stop service and remove the tracks we have not our arc our  district court says that you lose because federal law or rather than state law controls and the surface transportation board is the responsible agency to determine where there can be real to treat this as a done deal with ownership fully returned fully vested again in the owner of this particular track at the time t the ownership documentation was filed and completed the course the abandonment of of the line that took place earlier a judgment call for it to be uncalled for to be returned to the owner possession returned to the owner they just didn't do it and so from our perspective they are holding over they used to have a right to have a right of the owner then is concerned with the threat of utilization of this particular is a half mile track it's only a half mile this whole forty five twenty three miles or whatever that didn't just get rolled up for the rest of it didn't matter that the really could do it if they wanted to know was only could stop the railroad from putting hazardous waste on it so as to why isn't this preemptive pardon just just to kind of cut to the chase why isn't this preempted the owner and in my client's situation has tile superior to anything of c s x or anyone else except some communications if they're there right that's just a declaration  have title order there's still an easement in favor of the railroad and so this does seem to fall squarely within the preemption clause that prohibits the use of state law including state law causes of action whether statutory or at common law to regulate rail transportation you're trying to extinguish the easement and i would get an order from a state court to remove the track and remove all real activity  that gave them back their holding over something they gave back a contract to give back we provided consideration for that that's a done deal and they've been holding over and the  i'm sorry is that in fact what the consent decree said that the railroad was giving up its easement the consent part of it it was declared that the property owners had fee simple it said it was  asserted state law claims and remedies seeking to prevent effect and oust c s x from conducting rail transportation and railroad operations on this rail line it issue it clearly constitutes the regulation of rail transportation under any definition as the court has recognized mr ayres clients they did not even go back we're going to talk about the clark judgment they didn't go back to hamilton county where the clark case was actually resolved which dealt with county the rail line at issue here in front of the weather meyers property has been continuously used for rail transportation as mr ayres conceded a moment ago other portions of the c s s rail line that were abandoned for mainline purpose not for this service were pulled up and ripped out for those properties if you had underlying reversionary interest and owned the property in fee and the railroad has ceased all real operations in the property reverts to you that's what clark effective january first one thousand nine hundred six it granted the surface transportation board with exclusive jurisdiction and also provided for express preemption which this court said in the union pacific chicago transit authority case was brought in sweeping defined regulation as something that would prevent or unreasonably interfere with transportation there is no more of this this is not a great area this is not a degree of interference this is wholesale prevention this is the relief requested the state law claims this was not an action to enforce something to do with the court judgment in hamilton county this was an action filed in state court in putnam county for a complaint to quiet title for trespass for a jackman and for pulmonary injunction the relief requested is c s x i think this is my property you need to rip up your ties rip up the track in your ballast stop serving the grain shipper you've been serving using these tracks since one nine hundred ninety at least rip it up tear it out and just stop and give it back that is quintessential regulation under the abundant case law that we've cited in our briefs that make make this a clear cut case of federal preemption under the i in two thousand and three they let their reliance stay there they didn't take any action with the s t b or with the hamilton county court or anyone else to do anything they let these tracks at their knowing they were being used for rail transportations and railroad operations dispute it's ongoing there's no dispute that these are state law remedies that the what am i or seek to invoke to essentially call rail transportation that is solely within the purview of the surface transportation in the federal courts in the district court got it operations so i think the record is clear and undisputed c s s did not abandon this track i would like to address just a few points that mr ayres said and he's a as well as advocate for his client there is no evidence in record of any hazardous substances we dropped a footnote to that there's this this claim now that in two thousand and thirteen there were some specter of hazardous substance there's no evidence in the record of that below and it was sort of thrown out there and allege but there was never any evidence of it this is a grain ship or it's a grain silo just out just east of roche dale indiana c s x between two thousand and one and two thousand and fourteen when we submitted the records into evidence for the district court they were shipping about a thousand carloads a year so they bring in empty rail cars and they haul out about a thousand real cars full of grain a year that's what this track is used for so and the track is adjacent to that one of our property is part of the operations in the switching  preemption this is not a breach of contract claim they didn't bring a breach of contract claim i don't think they could but they didn't they didn't go to the s t b they brought state law claims and putnam county that we removed that are quintessentially an absolutely and  that have caused c s x to extend itself to make its position any worse to make it take any protective measures so there is no basis for stop all or or any of those arguments there's also no basis for saying that they've been at it for almost ten years and therefore they can almost cla documentation to take in his mind and everyone else's complete control and possession of that property he assumed the taxes and his pay the taxes sense and of course that to