Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-09-01188/USCOURTS-caDC-09-01188-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
BNSF Railway Company
Intervenor for Respondent
Edwin Kessler
Petitioner
James Riffin
Petitioner
Surface Transportation Board
Respondent
United States of America
Respondent

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Argued September 20, 2010 Decided March 15, 2011 

No. 09-1188 

EDWIN KESSLER AND JAMES RIFFIN, 

PETITIONERS

v. 

SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD AND UNITED STATES OF 

AMERICA, 

RESPONDENTS

BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY, 

INTERVENOR

On Petition for Review of an Order 

of the Surface Transportation Board 

James Riffin, appearing pro se, argued the cause and filed 

the briefs for petitioners. Edwin Kessler, appearing pro se, 

entered an appearance. 

James B. Boles, Attorney, Surface Transportation Board, 

argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief were 

Robert B. Nicholson and John P. Fonte, Attorneys, U.S. 

Department of Justice, Ellen D. Hanson, General Counsel, 

Surface Transportation Board, and Craig M. Keats, Deputy 

USCA Case #09-1188 Document #1298136 Filed: 03/15/2011 Page 1 of 7
2 

General Counsel. Erik G. Light, Attorney, entered an 

appearance. 

Before: GINSBURG, ROGERS and GARLAND, Circuit 

Judges. 

 Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge GINSBURG. 

GINSBURG, Circuit Judge: Edwin Kessler and James 

Riffin petition for review of an order of the Surface 

Transportation Board (STB) denying them preliminary 

injunctive relief. We dismiss their petition because we lack 

jurisdiction to decide all but one of the claims presented and 

the petitioners have failed to exhaust their administrative 

remedies as to that claim. 

I. Background 

In July 2008 Kessler contracted with BNSF Railway Co. 

to have a locomotive he leased from Riffin transported and 

delivered to himself, “care of Boardman, Inc.,” a company in 

Oklahoma City with property abutting his own. After taking 

possession of the locomotive BNSF found Boardman would 

not accept delivery of the locomotive and so informed 

Kessler. When the parties failed to agree upon a suitable 

alternative arrangement for delivery, BNSF notified Kessler it 

was going to sell the locomotive at auction, as provided in the 

bill of lading, if he did not himself make arrangements to 

dispose of it.

 



 Despite Riffin’s admission at oral argument that the locomotive 

belongs to him, because both parties’ filings refer to the locomotive 

as belonging to Kessler instead of Riffin, and because Kessler is the 

named party in the proceedings in front of the STB, we refer to 

Kessler as the singular owner of the locomotive. 

USCA Case #09-1188 Document #1298136 Filed: 03/15/2011 Page 2 of 7
3 

Kessler then asked the STB for an injunction to stop the 

sale of the locomotive and to compel BNSF to complete 

delivery. Kessler also asked the STB to order BNSF to pay 

him damages of $50.00 for each day delivery was delayed and 

to relieve him of any obligation to pay demurrage fees. That 

motion was filed on January 26, 2009 and was duly opposed 

by BNSF.

The STB had not yet ruled upon Kessler’s motion when, 

on May 18 of that year, BNSF notified the STB it planned to 

begin the auction of Kessler’s locomotive in one week. On 

June 2 Kessler filed with the STB an emergency request for 

immediate relief, but on June 8 he moved voluntarily to 

dismiss both motions pending with the Board so that he might 

instead pursue relief in court. Later that day Kessler filed a 

motion for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary 

injunction in the U.S. District Court for the District of 

Maryland. Riffin v. BNSF Ry., No. 8:09-cv-1502. 

On June 12 the Board denied Kessler’s motion to dismiss 

and resolved on the merits his motions for injunctive relief. 

See Edwin KesslerPetition for Injunctive Relief, STB Dkt 

No. FD-35206 [hereinafter STB Decision].

 The STB held 

Kessler did not show the auction would irreparably harm him 

because, contrary to Kessler’s representation, the locomotive 

was easily replaceable. Id. at 5. The Board also held an 

injunction would not be in the public interest: Although 

BNSF had a general duty as a common carrier to serve all 

comers, Kessler had not shown how the public would benefit 

from enjoining the sale of a locomotive that was shipped not 

for any commercial purpose “but simply to ‘test’ BNSF.” Id.

 



 For any of the parties’ filings or the STB’s decisions, see 

http://www.stb.dot.gov. 

USCA Case #09-1188 Document #1298136 Filed: 03/15/2011 Page 3 of 7
4 

at 6. The Board accordingly denied Kessler's motion to 

enjoin the auction. Id. The Board also refused to compel 

BNSF to deliver the locomotive; because the “true nature of 

[Kessler’s] dispute” with BNSF was unclear, the Board held 

Kessler failed to show he would likely prevail upon his claim 

BNSF violated its common law duties. Id. With respect to 

Kessler’s requests for relief from demurrage and other fees, 

and for $50.00 in damages for each day delivery was delayed, 

the Board held, respectively, that the record provided no basis 

for enjoining BNSF from the collection of those charges and 

that claims for monetary damages are properly raised in a 

complaint proceeding and not as a part of a motion for 

injunctive relief. Id. at 7. 

Shortly after the Board issued its order, BNSF sold 

Kessler’s locomotive at public auction for $5,000. The 

Maryland district court then denied as moot (among other 

defects) Kessler’s pending motion for a TRO and dismissed 

his claim without prejudice. 

In this court Kessler seeks review of the Board’s order 

denying him injunctive and other relief. He argues the 

Board’s decision is both incorrect on the merits and 

procedurally infirm. The Board responds that we should 

dismiss Kessler’s petition for review because his petition 

asking the Board for injunctive relief is now moot and 

because, as to other relief, he has failed to exhaust his 

administrative remedies. We agree with the Board and 

accordingly we dismiss the petition in its entirety. 

II. Analysis 

We may disturb the Board’s order denying Kessler 

preliminary relief only if it is “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse 

of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” 5 

USCA Case #09-1188 Document #1298136 Filed: 03/15/2011 Page 4 of 7
5 

U.S.C. § 706(A)(2); Riffin v. Surface Transp. Bd., 592 F.3d 

195, 197 (D.C. Cir. 2010). Before we may do so, however, 

we must determine whether we have jurisdiction, in whole or 

in part, over Kessler’s petition for review. Ctr. for Arms 

Control & Non-Proliferation v. Pray, 531 F.3d 836, 839 n.

(D.C. Cir. 2008). 

It is uncontroverted that BNSF has sold Kessler’s 

locomotive to a third party and that the purchaser is not before 

the court. Kessler’s request for an injunction against the sale 

is therefore moot and accordingly beyond our jurisdiction. 

See Calderon v. Moore, 518 U.S. 149, 150 (1996) (“an appeal 

should ... be dismissed as moot when, by virtue of an 

intervening event, a court of appeals cannot grant any 

effectual relief whatever in favor of the appellant”) (internal 

quotation marks omitted); Bunn v. Werner, 210 F.2d 730, 731 

(D.C. Cir. 1954) (injunction filed to prevent “a foreclosure 

sale of certain real estate” dismissed as moot after foreclosure 

sale had taken place); cf. FTC v. Weyerhaeuser Co., 665 F.2d 

1072, 1077 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (sale does not moot an appeal 

where all parties including the purchaser are before the court). 

We likewise lack jurisdiction over and dismiss the 

portions of Kessler’s petition that would have the court (i) 

“compel the Board to compel BNSF” to retrieve the 

locomotive from its current owner and deliver it to Kessler, 

and (ii) order BNSF to (a) pay Kessler damages for delayed 

delivery of his locomotive and (b) discharge any outstanding 

demurrage fees. First, the current owner of the locomotive is 

not a party to this litigation and the court will not issue an 

order affecting the rights of an absent third party. Richards v. 

Jefferson Cnty., 517 U.S. 793, 797 n.4 (1996) (“The 

opportunity to be heard is an essential requisite of due process 

of law in judicial proceedings”). Second, insofar as Kessler’s 

claims arise from the carrier’s liability under the bill of 

USCA Case #09-1188 Document #1298136 Filed: 03/15/2011 Page 5 of 7
6 

lading, they must be filed in the first instance in a district or 

state court. 49 U.S.C. § 11706(d)(1). 

To the extent Kessler asks us to order the Board to 

investigate whether BNSF has improperly abandoned a rail 

line or failed to fulfill its obligation as a common carrier 

pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 11101, we dismiss his petition 

because he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. 

Under 49 U.S.C. § 11701, the STB may initiate an 

investigation of a rail carrier “only on complaint.”

 The STB 

has issued a regulation prescribing the form and manner in 

which a complaint must be filed. See 49 C.F.R. § 1111.1. 

Kessler’s failure to comply with that regulation puts his 

arguments in this regard out of court. See Chicago & Nw. 

Transp. Co. v. Kalo Brick & Tile Co., 450 U.S. 311, 321–23 

(1981) (“Congress intended that an aggrieved shipper should 

seek relief in the first instance from the Commission”). 

Finally, Kessler argues the Board somehow acted 

improperly by denying his motion voluntarily to dismiss his 

pending motions for injunctive relief and going on to reach 

the merits of his claim. Kessler therefore asks us to vacate the 

Board’s decision so he is not collaterally estopped from filing 

a complaint in the district court “to compel BNSF to retrieve 

the locomotive if it has not in fact been scrap[p]ed, ... [to] 

order BNSF to find another locomotive that is similar to [that 

sold], or [to] provide ... compensatory and punitive damages.” 

 



 Under 49 U.S.C. § 11702, the Board may also bring a civil action 

“to enjoin a rail carrier from violating §§ 10901 through 10906.” 

Kessler has not sought such an action, nor does it appear a Board 

decision in that regard would be subject to judicial review. See 5 

U.S.C. § 701(a)(2) (exempting from review actions committed by 

law to an agency’s discretion). 

USCA Case #09-1188 Document #1298136 Filed: 03/15/2011 Page 6 of 7
7 

Kessler’s concern is ill-founded. Kessler will not be able 

to obtain an order compelling BNSF to retrieve his 

locomotive regardless whether we vacate the Board’s 

decision: the locomotive has been sold at auction. 

Accordingly, as a practical matter, damages are the only form 

of relief against BNSF still available to Kessler. See 49 U.S.C 

§§ 11704 (a carrier “is liable for damages sustained” as a 

result of a violation of the ICCTA), 11706 (permitting a civil 

suit for “actual loss or injury” to property shipped pursuant to 

a bill of lading); see also Rymes Heating Oils, Inc. v. 

Springfield Terminal Ry., 358 F.3d 82, 89 (1st Cir. 2004) 

(“§ 11704(b) clearly provides a damages action for a direct 

statutory violation of the ICCTA itself”) (emphasis added). In 

that regard, the Board’s order expressly states, “Kessler may 

yet pursue his claim that BNSF violated its common carrier 

duty” by filing with the Board a complaint for “appropriate 

damages.” STB Decision, at 6. If the Board’s order does not 

prevent Kessler from seeking damages from the Board, we 

fail to see how it would prevent him from seeking that same 

relief from a district court. See 49 U.S.C. § 11704(c)(1) (a 

person injured as a result of a carrier’s violation of the Act 

“may file a complaint with the Board under § 11701(b) ... or 

bring a civil action”). Because vacating the Board’s decision 

would not provide Kessler with the relief he seeks, a ruling 

upon the propriety of the Board’s decision would be no more 

than advisory. See Chicago & S. Air Lines v. Waterman S.S. 

Corp., 333 U.S. 103, 113–14 (1948) (“This Court early and 

wisely determined that it would not give advisory opinions”). 

III. Conclusion 

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 

Dismissed. 

USCA Case #09-1188 Document #1298136 Filed: 03/15/2011 Page 7 of 7