Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00395/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00395-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 320
Nature of Suit: Assault, Libel, and Slander
Cause of Action: 45:51 Railways: Fed. Employer's Liability Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

MICHAEL S. TUCKER, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY, a 

corporation; VERLEY FARMS, 

business entity, form unknown; 

DAVID LYNN VERLEY, an 

individual, 

 Defendants. 

______________________________/

No. 2:06-CV-395-JAM-EFB 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

 Michael S. Tucker (“Plaintiff”) brought this action against 

BNSF Railway Company (“BNSF”), Verley Farms, and David Lynn 

Verley for violation of the Federal Employers’ Liability Act 

(“FELA”), 45 U.S.C. §§ 51 et seq., personal injury, and premises 

liability. On August 6, 2008, this Court issued an order 

granting summary adjudication on Plaintiff’s claim that under 

FELA, BNSF was required to install seat belts and padding in its 

cabs. Plaintiff now moves for reconsideration. BNSF opposes 

1

Case 2:06-cv-00395-JAM-EFB Document 65 Filed 10/08/08 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

the motion. For the reasons stated below, Plaintiff’s Motion 

for Reconsideration is DENIED.1

OPINION 

 Rule 54(b) states: 

[A]ny order or other decision, however designated, that 

adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights and 

liabilities of fewer than all the parties does not end the 

action as to any of the claims or parties and may be 

revised at any time before the entry of a judgment 

adjudicating all the claims and all the parties’ rights and 

liabilities. 

However, E.D. Cal. L. R. 78-230(k) states, amongst other things, 

that a party moving for reconsideration must show: 

[W]hat new or different facts or circumstances are claimed 

to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon such 

prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion, 

and why the facts or circumstances were not shown at the 

time of the prior motion. 

“To succeed in a motion to reconsider, a party must set forth 

facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the court 

to reverse its prior decision.” Hansen v. Schubert, 459 

F.Supp.2d 973, 998 (E.D. Cal. 2006); see also United States v. 

Westlands Water Dist., 134 F.Supp.2d 1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001) 

(“A party seeking reconsideration must show more than a 

disagreement with the Court’s decision, and recapitulation of 

the cases and arguments considered by the court before rendering 

 

1

 This motion was determined to be suitable for decision 

without oral argument. E.D. Cal. L.R. 78-230(h). 

2

Case 2:06-cv-00395-JAM-EFB Document 65 Filed 10/08/08 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

its original decision fails to carry the moving party’s 

burden.”)(internal citations omitted). 

 The Court first notes that Plaintiff has provided no new 

facts or circumstances, but rather seeks to have this Court 

reconsider arguments that were already presented in its previous 

motion. Plaintiff’s primary objection to this Court’s decision 

is that the Court allegedly failed to examine its claim using a 

negligence standard, but rather applied the strict liability 

standard found in the Locomotive Inspection Act (“LIA”), 49 

U.S.C. §§ 20701 et seq. Plaintiff’s objection is without merit. 

 This Court applied a negligence standard under FELA. 

However, this Court found a negligence claim to be precluded. 

Numerous courts have held that compliance with Federal Railroad 

Administration (“FRA”) regulations precludes a FELA claim. See

Waymire v. Norfolk & Western Ry., 218 F.3d 773, 775 (7th Cir. 

2000) (unsafe speed claim); see also Dickerson v. Staten 

Trucking, Inc., 428 F.Supp.2d 909, 913 (E.D. Ark. 2006) 

(precluding claim for failure to provide seatbelts and padding); 

Sindoni v. CONRAIL, 4 F.Supp.2d 358, 365 (M.D. Pa. 1996) (same 

for crashworthiness). Furthermore, a court has specifically 

held that the provision of seatbelts and padding is not required 

to comply with FRA regulations. Dickerson, 428 F.Supp.2d at 

913. Finally, as the Court noted in its Order, BNSF had no 

statutory duty to provide seat belts and padding under LIA. 

3

Case 2:06-cv-00395-JAM-EFB Document 65 Filed 10/08/08 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Therefore, this Court concluded that BNSF had complied with FRA 

regulations, and that, as a result, Plaintiff’s negligence claim 

was precluded. 

 Plaintiff obviously disagrees with the law that compels 

this Court to grant summary judgment for BNSF and resorts to 

name calling in a misguided attempt to get this Court to reverse 

itself. Among other things, Plaintiff calls the Court’s reliance 

on established precedent “misplaced”, “inappropriate”, 

“completely wrong”, “mistaken”, “manifestly unjust”, 

“incorrect”, “prejudicial”, and a “clear and manifest error of 

law”. This Court carefully considered the merits of Plaintiff’s 

case and found, as a matter of law, it had no merit. 

Plaintiff’s motion herein does nothing to change the Court’s 

opinion. Indeed, in the absence of any new or different facts, 

circumstances or law, this Court is compelled to deny this 

motion for reconsideration. Plaintiff’s next stop, if he so 

chooses, is the Court of Appeals. As far as Plaintiff’s case is 

concerned, this train has left the station. 

ORDER 

 For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff’s Motion for 

Reconsideration is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: October 7, 2008 

4

Case 2:06-cv-00395-JAM-EFB Document 65 Filed 10/08/08 Page 4 of 4