Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determin ed that thi s opinio n should not * be publishe d an d is not precede nt except und er the limit ed circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 60569 S u m m ary C al en da r
R O B E R T C H A R L E S E R V IN , P l a i n ti ff - A p p ell a n t v. S P R IN T C O M M U N IC A T IO N S C O M P A N YL P , D efen da n t - A pp el l ee

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f o rt he So ut he r n Di s t r i c t o f M i s s i s s i ppi U SD C N o. 3: 09- C V

- 47

B ef ore K IN G , ST E W A R T , an d H AY N E S , C i rcui t Ju dg es . P E R C U R I A M: * A pp el l an tR obertC h a rle s E rvi n app eal s t h e di st ri ctcourt ’ s grant of
sum m ary j u dg m en tt o A pp el l ee S pri n t C om m u n i cat i on s C o. , L
. P
. (“ S pri n t ” ) on al lcl ai m s and the den i alof h i s m ot i on t o rem an d. M r. E rvi n sued Sp ri n t un der M i ssi ssi pp il aw f

or t respass, unju st e n ri chm en t , an d sl an der t o t i t l e based on S p r in t’s in s ta lla tio n o f u n d e r g r o u n d fib e r o p tic ca b le o n p r o p e r ty th a t M r . E r v in
as s e r t e d t hathe o w ns . M r . Erv i n f ur t he r s o ugh t an i nj unc t i o n r e qui r i ng Spr i nt United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Februar y 9, 2010 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I Clerk Case: 09-60569 Document: 00511023206 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/09/2010N o. 09- 60569

2 t o r em ove t he c abl e f r om hi s l and a n d a de c l ar at or y j udgm entt hat Spri nt had
n o rig h t t o in s ta ll a n d h a s n o rig h t t o o p e r a te th e te le c o m m u n ic a tio n s ca b le
. W e co n c lu d e t h a t M r . E r v in ’ s p u r p o r te d cla im s m e t t h e a m o u n t in controver sy requi rem en tso as t o cr eate di versi t y j u ri sdi ct i on , an d w e t h eref ore AF FI RM t he di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s de ni alo f hi s m o t i o n t o r e m and
. U nde rt hi s Ci r c ui t ’ s pr e c e de nt , M r . Er vi n’ s fai l ur e t o r e s po nd t o t he
sum m ary j u dg m en tm ot i on ef fect i vel y w ai ves h i s opp ort u n i t y t o of fer evi den ce o rl e ga la r gum e n t in op posi t i o n t o s um m ar y j udg m e nt
. Fur t he r , w e c o nc l ude t h at S pri n t of

fered u n controver t ed s u m m ary j u dg m en t evi den ce u n der w h i ch M r . E r vi n ca nnot pr evai l
. W e t hu s A F F IR M t he di st r i c t c our t ’ s j udgm entas w e ll. I. F a c ts In 18 5 3 , Ja m es S tu rg i s d ee d e d l a n d f rom a ce rtain pa rcel of pr op erty to t he N ew O r l eans , Jac kso n and G r eatN or t her n R a i lR oad Com pany ( “ G r eat N or t her n” ) f

orc ons t r uct i on o f

a rai lc or r i dor
. The s t at e o f M i ss i ss i ppihad
s t at ut o r i l y c har t e r e d Gr e atN o r t he r n t he pr e vi o us ye ar . M r . St ur gi s ’ s de e d (t he “D e e d ”), w h ic h is in la r g e p a r t th e s u b je c t of th is d is p u te , p r o v id e d th a t S tu r g is don ates, gran t s, a l i e nat e s , a nd c on veys, an d by t h ese presents do[ es] don ate, gran t , al i en an d c on vey un t o t h e sai d N ew O rl ean s, Jackson an d G reatN ort h ern R ai lR oad C om pa n y such part an d p ort i on of t he a f o r e s ai d t r ac to f

l and a s m ayb e nec e s s ar y unde r t he pr o vi s i o ns o f t he Char t e ro f

s ai d Co m pa ny t o b ui l d a nd c o ns t r uc t sai d Ro ad , t ogether w ith a l lsuch ti m ber, st on e, eart h , gravelan d other m at e r i al s w hi c h m ay be f o und o n s ai d t r ac t o f l and ne c e s sary and pr o pe rt o b e us e d i n t he c o ns t r uc t i o n o f s ai d Ro ad
. G r eatN or t her n subs equent l y c ons t r uct ed a r ai l r oad t hro ugh t he l and pass ed by t hi s D e e d (t he “ Rai l r o ad G r antLand ” )
. I n 1 98 7, Spr i nt ’ s p redec e s s o r , U
. S. Tel e c o m , I nc . , i ns t al l e d un de r gr o und f i be r o pt i c c ab l e o n t he Rai l r o ad G r ant Lan d purs uant t o a 1986 eas em entgr ant ed byI l l i noi s C ent r alG ul f R ai l r oad Case: 09-60569 Document: 00511023206 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/09/2010N o. 09- 60569

I llinoi s Central Gulf Railroa d C ompany was sub sequ ently rena med Illinoi s C entr al 1 Railro ad Com pany. The parti es are diverse. 2 3 Com pa n y , Gr e a t No r t h e r n ’ s s u c c e s s o r . At t h a t t i m e , Ve l m a Er v i n o wne d t he 1
r es i dualp r o p e r t y n o tc o nv e y e d b y t he De e d (t he “ Er v i n Pr o p e r t y ” )
. I n 1 9 9 2, V el m a E rvi n con veyed t h e E rvi n P ropert y by qu i t cl ai m deed t o R obertC arl os E r v in
. W h en R ob ert C a rl os E rv i n died , P la in tiff-A p p e lla n t R o b e r t C h a r le s E r v in obtai n ed ti t l e t o t h e E rvi n P ropert y t h rough aJ udg m e ntCl osi n g E st ate r ecorded i n 1995. M r. E rv i n f

i l ed this l a w su i t ag a i n st S p ri n t a n d s ev era loth er d efen d a n ts i n M i s s i s s i ppi s t at e c o ur t o n D e c e m be r 15 , 20 08
. The de fe nda nt s r e m o ve d t o t he U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rtf or t h e Sou t h ern D i st ri ctof M i ssi ssi pp ion Ja n u ary 23, 200 9. M r. E rvi n an d alldefen da n t s ot h er t h an Sp ri n t short l y a fterw ard st i pu l ated t o a di sm i ss a l o f a llcl ai m s. M r. E rvi n f i l ed a m ot i on t o rem an d on M ar c h 10, 2009, ar gui ng t hat the am ount i n c ont r ove r syw as l es s t han $75, 000. T h e di st ri ctcourtden i ed t h e m ot i on , a n d S pri n t i m m edi atel y f i l ed f or s u m m ary j u d g me n t
. Mr
. E r v i n fa i l e d t o r e s p o n d t o t h e mo t i o n f o r s u mm a r y j u d g me n t
. O n M a y 1 8 , 20 0 9 , th e dist ri ct cou rt gr a n ted su m m a ry j u d gm en t i n fa vo r of Sp ri n t, rul i n g t h at M r. E rvi n l acked st an di n g t o pu rsue his cl ai m s because the sum m ary j u dg m en tevi den ce s h ow ed that Sp ri n t ow n ed th e R ai l road G ran t L an d i n fee si m pl e. M r . Er vi n no w a ppe al s b o t h t he de ni alo f hi s m o t i on to re m and a nd t he di sm i ssalw i t h prej u di ce of hi s c l ai m s. II . A n a ly s is A. D e ni alof

t he Mo t i o n t o Rem and W e f i rstrej ectM r. E rvi n ’ s argu m en t t h at t h i s c ou rtan d the di st ri ctcourt l ack j u ri sdi ct i on becau se S pri n tha s not show n t h at t h e am ou n t i n contr oversy her e e xc ee ded $75 , 000 as r equi r ed by28 U
. S. C
. § 1332( a)
. W e r evi ew t he deni al 2 Case: 09-60569 Document: 00511023206 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/09/2010N o. 09- 60569

Th e re cord disclo ses th at Mr. E rvin so ught a se ttleme nt of $ 1,00 0,00 0, su ggestin g 3 th at h e di d inf

a ctse ekr ec overyo f th es e a mo u nts
. 4 o f a m o t i o n t o r e m and de no vo , “ l o o k[ i ng] o nl y t o t he fac e o f t he c o m pl ai nta nd
as k[ i ng] w het hert he am ount i n co nt r ove r syex c ee ds” t he j uri sdi c t i onal th r e s h o ld
. S
. W
. S
. E rec t ors, In c. v. I nf ax, I n c. , 7 2 F .3d 4 8 9 , 4 9 2 (5t h C ir. 1 9 9 6 ).

“ [ O ] nc e a de fe nda nti s a bl e t o s ho w t hatt he am o unti n c o nt r o ve r s y e xc e e ds t he j uri sdi c t i onalam ount , r em ovali s pro per , pr ovi ded pl ai nt i f f has nots how n t hat i ti s l e ga l l y c e r t ai n t hathi s r e c o ve r y w i l lno t e xc e e d t he a m o unts t at e d i n t he state co m p l a i n t. ” D e Agu i l ar v. B oei ng C o. , 4 7 F .3d 1 4 0 4 , 1 4 1 2 (5t h C ir. 1 9 9 5 ). M r . E r vi n’ s or i gi nalc om pl ai nt i n M i ss i ss i ppic our t c l ai m ed that Spri nt had

“ recei [ved ]
. . . an d r et [ ai n ed]
. . . m i l l i on s of dol l ars i n t h e f orm of rents , prof

i t s, and o t he rbe ne f

i t s pr o pe r l y pa ya bl e t o P l ai nt i f f ” and s o ugh t t he i r di s go r ge m e nt
as u nj u st en ri chm en t
. In a case i n w h i ch the pl ai n t i f f seeks equit able m on et ary r e l i e f, s uc h a s di s go r ge m e nto r r e s t i t ut i o n, “ ‘ i t i s w e l le s t ab l i s he d t hatt he
a m ou n t i n con trov ersy i s m ea su red by the va l u e of the ob j ect of t h e li ti ga ti on ’ ”— th a t is , t h e a m o u n t o f e q u ita b le m o n e ta r y r e lie f s o u g h t. S ee G a rc ia v . K o ch O il C o. of T ex. , I n c. , 351 F. 3d 636, 640 ( 5t h C i r . 2003) ( quot i ng H u n t v. W a sh
. S ta te A pp le A d v e r . C o m m ’n , 432 U
. S
. 333 , 347 ( 197 7) )
. T h ere i s nothi n g i n t h e rec ord t o sugg est t hatt he di s go r ge m e ntc l ai m s w e r e m ad e i n b ad fai t h, no r ha s t he p l a i n t i f f o f fe r e d a n y me a n i n g f

u le v i d e n c e o r l e g a la r g u me n t t h a t t h o s e c l a i ms are f or l ess t h an $75 , 000
. W e t h u s decl i n e t o f i n d that “ it .
. . app ear[ s] t o a 3 le g a l ce r ta in ty th a t t h e c la im is re a lly fo r le s s th a n th e ju r is d ic tio n a l a m o u n t.” G in tere xr el. B a lla rd v. B elc h er, P re n d erg a st & L a p o rte , 5 3 6 F .3 d 4 3 9 , 4 5 5 n .6 (5th C i r. 20 0 8 ). W e th ere fore a ff i rm the d i stri ct cou rt’ s d en i a lof th e m oti on to
r e m and
. B. G r antof

t he Mo t i o n f

o rSum m ar

y Judg m e nt M r . E r v in ’s a r g u m e n t s o n a p p e a l s e e k in gr e v e r s a l o f t h e d is t r ic t c o u r t ’s g r a n to f s u m m a r y ju d g m e n ta r e w a iv e d b e c a u s e h e fa il e d to o p p o s e S p r in t ’s Case: 09-60569 Document: 00511023206 Page: 4 Date Filed: 02/09/2010N o. 09- 60569

M r . E rvin did r aise some of th e argu ments he makes onapp ealaft er e ntryof 4 ju dgment in what the district co urt in t erpret ed a s a motionu nder Federal Rule of C ivil Pro cedur e 5 9(e) and deni ed. However , such“[m]otions for an ew tri al or to alter or amen d a ju dgment must clearlyestabli sh eithe r amanifest errorof law or fact o r must present n ewly discovered evidence. Th ese mo tion s cannot be used to r aise arguments which cou ld , an d should, have beenmadebefore the ju dgment i ssued.” Simon v. United States , 89 1 F .2d 1 154 , 115 9 (5 th Cir. 1 990) (quotation marks an d citation omitte d). A legal argument not r aised in opposit io n t o su mmary ju dgment b ut imprope rlyraised for the first time in a Rule59 (e) motionis stillwaived b ecau se such an argument was never p roperly befo re the district co urt. See id. Fort he s ame reaso n, we affirm the district co urt’s deni al of th e Rule59 (e) motion u n de r th e de fe re nti al ab u seo f di sc re tionst a n dard
. See Marseilles Homeowners Con do. Ass’n v. F id. Na t’ l I ns. Co. , 54 2 F .3d 1 053 , 10 58 (5thC ir. 2 008) (holdin g that “[t]he district court di d not abu s e it s con siderablediscr etio n in denying [th e appell ant] th e o pportu nityto raise[a] cl aimaft erj u dgme nt”th at sh ouldh ave b ee nargu edb ef or e j u dgme nt wa s e nte re d)
. As our re centdecisionin Franks In vest mentCo. LLC v. U nionP acific Railroad Co. , 5

__ _ F .3 d

__

_, No. 0 8 -3 0 2 3 6 , 2 0 1 0WL2 2 3 3 7( 5 thC ir
. J a n . 6, 2010) (enb a nc) , co nfirm s, a diversityactionsou ndin g in state property law is permissib le herean d not pr eempted byth e Interstat e C ommerce Commission Ter minationAct of 1995 , Pub. L. No. 1 04-8 8, 1 09 Stat. 803
. 5 m o tio n in th e d is tr ic t c o u r t. W e h a v e e x p la in e d th a t “[i]t is w e ll s e tt le d in th is C ir c u it t h a t t h e s c o p e o f a p p e lla te re v ie w o n a s u m m a r y ju d g m e n t o r d e ris l i m i ted to m a tters pr ese n ted to t h e d i stri ct cou rt. ” K eelan v. Maj esc o S of

t w are, Inc. , 407 F
. 3d 332 , 339 ( 5th C i r. 200 5)
. “ If a party fai l s t o asser t a l egal reason w hy s um m ar y j udg m e nts ho ul d no t be g ran t ed, t hatg r o und i s w ai ve d a nd
ca n n ot be con sider ed or ra i sed on ap p ea l
. ” V a ug h n erv. P u lito , 804 F. 2d 873, 877
n . 2 ( 5 th C i r. 19 8 6 ). H ere , M r. E rv i n raised n o a r g u m en ts i n op p ositi on to
sum m ar y j udgm enti n t he di st r i c t c our t , and w e t hus do not c ons i der t he l egal 4
a r g u m e n ts h e a d v a n c e s fo rth e fir s t t im e o n a p p e a l. N evert h el ess, i n our de n ovo revi ew , w e, li ke t h e d i st ri ctcou rt , a re obl i ged t o assess w h et h er “ [ t ] h e m ovan tha s [ m et ] t h e bu rden of est abli shi n g t h e absen ce of a g enui ne i ss ue of

m at er i alfac t
. . . r egar dl es s of w het herany r es ponse w as fi l ed
. ” He t z e lv . Be t hl e he m St e e lCor p. , 50 F. 3d 360, 362 n. 3 ( 5 th C i r. 1995) ( quot at i on m ar ks and ci t a ti on om i t t ed)
. W e a gr ee w i t h t he di st r i c t c our t t hat Spri nt ’ s sum m ar y j udgm ent evi denc e es t abl i she d t hat Spr i nt ow ns t he R ai l r oad G r antLand i n f

e e si m pl e unde rM i s s i s s i ppil aw. M r . Er vi n’ s a r gum e nt s t o t he 5 Case: 09-60569 Document: 00511023206 Page: 5 Date Filed: 02/09/2010N o. 09- 60569

W e have pr eviou sly appli ed Mashbu rn to the facts of averysimil ar butnon- 6 pr ec ed enti al c a seto r eachth e sa mer es ulta s h er e. See Joh nson v. Kan. Cit y S. Ry . C

o. , 20 8 F
. App ’x2 9 2 ( 5 thC ir
. 2 0 0 6) (u npub li sh ed). 6 contrary are u n a vail i n g i n l i gh t of contr ol l i n g M i ssi ssi pp iSu prem e C ou rt p rece d en t. M r . Er vi n c anno tpr e va i lo n hi s c l ai m s b e c aus e he do e s no t o w n t he l and in d isp u te
. T h e D e e d g ra n te d G re a t N o r t h e rn a n u n sp e cified se ctio n of a pa r t i c ul arpa r c e lo f

l and w i t ho uts pe c i f yi ng t he pr e c i s e i nt e r e s t i n t he l and t ran sferred. A pp l yi n g M i ssi ssi pp ilaw , w e read t h e D eed to convey , as a m att er o f la w , fe e tit le to th e ra ilr o a d in th e la n d w h e r e th e ra il lin e w a s in s ta lle d
. F ir s t, a s to w h a t la n d w a s c o n v e y e d , th e M is s is s ip p i S u p r e m e C o u r t in A l ab am a & V

i cksbu rg R ail w ay C o . v . Mash bu rn , 1 0 9 S o . 2 d 5 3 3 (M iss
. 1 9 5 9 ),
a d d r e s s e d th is v e r y q u e s tio n . Mas hbur n h eld th a t
w h ere propert y i s c on veyed by a gr an t or t o a rai l road c om pa n y f or pur po s e o f

i t s r i ght

- o f

- w ay , w i t ho utt he f ul lde s c r i pt i o n o f

t he l and con ve ye d , the occu p a n cy of a pa rti cu l a r rou te by the gra n tee w i th t h e con se n t o f the gran t or w i l li den t i f y an d l ocat e t h e property f or s uc h pu r po s e . I ti nde e d woul d b e a t r av e s t y o n j u st i c e t o ho l d a deed voi d f

or i m perfectdescri pti on w h ere a r ai l road h as const ructed i t s r i gh t
- of

- w ay an d h as been operati n g t rai n s over t h e sam e f or over one h u n dred yea rs. Id
. a t 53 7 (i n tern a lcitati on o m i tted). W e fi n d tha t Mas hbur n go ve r ns t hi s i s s ue and e s t a b l i s h e s t h a t t h e s c o p e o f l a n d a t i s s u e i s t h a t a c t u a l l y o c c u p i e d by t he rai l road f

or the l ast century an d a h al f, n ot w i t h st an di n g t h e l ack of descri pti on i n t he D e e d. S e c o n d , a s to w h a t in te r e s t in th e la n d w a s co n v e y e d , Mas hbur n is a g a in h i gh l y i n st ructive. U n der Mash bu rn , t he c o ur t i s t o l o o k t o t he l ang uag e o f t he 6 d e e d re a d i n c o nj u n c tio n w ith th e ra ilr o a d ’ s s ta tu to r y ch a r te r . Id
. a t 53 5
. In
a s s e s s in gth e la n g u a g e o f t h e d e e d , m o r e o v e r , w e a r e to a p p ly M is s is s ip p i’s st atutor y presum pti on t h at “ [ e] very est ate i n l an ds .
. . gran t ed, co n v e y ed, or Case: 09-60569 Document: 00511023206 Page: 6 Date Filed: 02/09/2010N o. 09- 60569

This diff er ence di stin guis h es E rvin’s ca sef ro m th e ca seupo nwhichh e re li es , New 7 Orleans & Nort heastern Railroad v. Mo rrison , 35So. 2d 6 8 (Mis s . 1 948) (enbanc). I n that ca se , th e granto r de ed eda“ri ght of way ,”which , th e co urth el d, si gnif ie d a ne a se me nt. The gove rningch arte ri n t his case provided for procedures th at would “ve st a 8 co mp letetitleinsaid[railro a d] c om pany .” 7 dev i sed .
. . shallbe deem ed a fee- si m pl e i f a les s estat e b e n otli m i t ed by exp ress w or ds ordo notappearto h a ve bee n gr ant ed, c onvey ed, ordev i se d by
con stru cti on or op era ti on of l a w . ” H UT CHI NS ON ’ S M IS S
. C ODE , ch. 42, ar t
. 1, par a. 2 3 (1 8 4 8 ); seeal so M IS S
. C ODE A NN . § 8 9- 1- 5 ( 19 99 ) ( “ Eve r y e s t at e i n l and s gr ant ed, c onvey ed, ordevi se d .
. . s hal lbe dee m ed a fee - si m pl e i f a l es s es t at e b e n o t lim ite d b y e x p r e s s w o r d s , o ru n le s s it c le a r ly a p p e a r f r o m t h e c o n v e y a n c e . . . th a t a le s s e s ta te w a s in te n d e d to b e p a s s e d th e r e b y .”). A pp l yi n g t h ese t h ree c on si deratio n s h ere, w e f i n d, l i ke the Mash bu rn c our t , t hat t he R ai l r oad G r ant Land w a s con veyed i n fee s i m pl e t o G r eat N o r t he r n. I n Mash bu rn , t h e M i ssi ssi pp iSu prem e C ou rtf ou n d t h at t h e use of t h e w ord “ l an d” i n t h e t ext of t h e deed , read t ogether w i t h both t h e sta tu t ory presum pti on an d the rai l road’ s c h art er authori zi n g l an d a cq u isi t i on i n fee s im p le , w a s u ltim a te ly d e te r m in a tiv e . 1 0 9 S o . 2 d a t 5 3 6 (“[ T ]h e d e e d its e lf

. . . convey ed that port i on of t h e ‘ l and ’necessary or u sef u l i n t h e const ructi on , use, and pr e s e r va t i o n o f

t he Rai l r o ad
. I t di d no t c o nve y a r i ght
. I t c o nve ye d t he la n d .”). W e f i n d the sam e cond i t i on s h ere. T h e deed gran t s a “ pa rtan d p ort i on of t h e . . . t ractof

l an d”— n ota ri gh t or setof ri gh t s i n th a t la n d
. Th e st atutor y 7 p r e s u m p tio n is t h e s a m e . T h e ch a r te r p r o v id e d fo r a “c o m p le te tit le .” W e 8 t he r e f o r e c o nc l ude t hatt he Rai l r o ad G r antLand w as con veye d i n f e e t o t he G r e a t N o r th e r n , a n d th a t M r . E r v in th u s h a s n o rig h ts in th e la n d
. Th e s um m ar y j udgm entev i denc e t hat Spri nt advanc ed e st abl i she s t hat G r e a t N o r th e r n a n d its s u c c e s s o r s h a v e o w n e d th e d is p u te d la n d in fe e s im p le Case: 09-60569 Document: 00511023206 Page: 7 Date Filed: 02/09/2010N o. 09- 60569

8 si n ce 1853
. T h at factcom pl et el y defeat s M r. E rvi n ’ s cl ai m s, w h i ch are a l lbased
u p o n t h e p r e m i s e t h a th e o wn s t h e l a n d i n q u e s t i o n ; I l l i n o i s Ce n t r a l , a s t he
s u cces sive fee ow n er, l a w full y g ra n ted S p ri n t an ea sem en t t o insta l lthe ca b le
w i t h ou tan y possi bl e cogni zable of fen se t o M r. E rvi n or h i s anteceden t s. I I I . Con cl usi on W e t he r e f

o r e AFF I RM t he di s t r i c t c o ur t ’ s de ni alo f t he m o t i o n t o r e m and
a n d it s ju d g m e n to f d is m is s a l w it h p r eju d ic e . W e D E N Ya s M O O T S p r in t ’s
m ot i on t o st ri ke the porti on s of M r. E rvi n ’ s bri ef

t h at r el y o n a rgum en t s not p rese n ted to t h e d i stri ct cou rt. Case: 09-60569 Document: 00511023206 Page: 8 Date Filed: 02/09/2010