FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTH CI RCUI T J UNE 3, 2010 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 9- 16 08 0 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock et No. 0 9- 00 00 4- CV-5 UNDRE SMITH,
Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t,

ve rs us CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC.,
Defen da nt -Ap pe ll ee.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e So ut he rn Dis tri ct of Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (J un e 3 , 20 10 )
Befo re BARKETT, HULL and COX, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM:
Pl ai nt iff Und re Sm it h fil ed su it ag ai ns t CSX Tran sp or ta ti o n , I n c. in th e Su pe rio r Co ur t of Co ffee Co un ty, Geo rg ia in Apr il 20 08 , an d CSX rem ov ed th e cas eba se d up on di ve rs it y of ci ti zen sh ip

. Sm it h cl ai m s th at a si de tra ck CSX pl aced a n d

op erat es ne ar hi s ho m e c o n s t i tu te s a nu is an ce un de r Geo rg ia la w. CSX m ov ed fo r

su m m ary jud gm en t. The di st ric t co ur t g ran te d C SX’s m ot io n, h ol di ng th at Sm it h’s

st at e-l aw nu is an ce cl ai m is pr eem pt ed by th e pl ai n la n g u ag e of th e In te rs ta te
Co m m erce Co m

m is si on Term in at io n Act of 19 95 , 49 U.S.C. § 10 10 1 et se q
. (R.3 -5 0

at 5.) Sm it h a pp eal s. Sm it h co nt en ds th at th e Act sh ou ld be in te rp ret ed to on ly pr eem pt st at e la w

c la im s de m an di ng rem ed ie s affe ct in g th e co re op erat io ns of rai lro ad s th a t a r e id en ti fie d in th e Act. He co nc ed es th at a pl ai nt iff ’s cl a i m i s pr eem pt ed whe n th e pl ai nt iff se ek s a rem ed y th at ch an ge s a rai lro ad ’s co re op erat io n. Bu t, Sm it h co nt en ds
th at whe n a pl ai nt iff se ek s a rem ed y de m an di ng an in su bs ta nt ia l ch an ge to in ci de nt al
op erat io ns , th e cl ai m is no t pr eem pt ed

. CSX res po nd s th at un de r th e pl ai n la ng ua ge of th e Act , st at e la w rem ed ie s d ire ct ed at s id et rack s ar e p reem pt ed

. The Act crea te d th e Su rfac e Tran sp or ta ti on Bo ard

. The Act pr ov id es th at th e
Bo ard ’s juri sd ic ti on ov er th e co ns tru ct io n, acqu isi tio n, ope ra tio n, ab an donm en t, or dis co nti nuance of sp ur , in du st ria l, te am, s wit ch in g, or si de tra ck s
. . . is ex cl us iv e. Exc ep t as ot he rwis e pr ov id ed un d e r th is pa rt, th e rem ed ie s pr ov id ed un de r th is pa rt wit h res pe ct to reg ul at io n of rai l tra ns po r t a ti on are ex cl us iv e an d pr eem

pt the rem ed ie s pr ov id ed un de r Fed eral or St at e la w. § 1 05 01 (b )(2 ).

2Co ng res si on al in te nt “ pr im ari ly is di sc ern ed fro m th e l a n g ua ge of th e pr eem pt io n st at ut e an d th e ‘s t a tu to ry fram ewo rk ’ su rro un di ng it .” Med tr on ic , In c. v.
Lo hr , 51 8 U.S. 47 0, 48 6, 11 6 S. Ct

. 2 2 4 0 , 22 50 -5 1 (1 99 6) (ci ta ti on om it te d)

. Alt ho ug h co ur ts be gi n th e pr eem pt io n an al y si s “ wit h th e as su m pt io n th at th e hi st or ic
po li ce po wers of th e St at es are no t to be su pe rs ed ed ,” th e pr es um p t i o n a g ai ns t
pr eem pt io n di ss ip at es whe n th e in te nt io n of Co ng res s is “ cl ear an d m an ife st .” Rieg el

v. M e d t r o ni c, In c. , 5 52 U.S. 3 12 , 3 34 , 1 28 S. Ct . 9 99 , 1 01 3 (2 00 8) (q uo ta ti on s an d
ci ta ti on om it te d)

. Here, Co ng res s’s in te nt is cl ear th at an y st at e la w in vo lv in g whe re
to co ns tru ct or ho w to op erat e a si de tra ck is pr eem pt ed

. Fo r th e reas on s st at ed by th e 1
di st ric t co ur t (R.3 -5 0 at 3- 5) , we ho ld t h a t t h e t e x t of th e Act ex pr es sl y pr eem pt s Sm it h’s s ta te -la w nu is an ce cl ai m
. AFFIR MED.

This court has considere d the Act’s pree mption befor e in Fla. E. Co a s t R y. Co. v. C ity of 1 W est Palm Beac h, 266 F.3d 1324 (11th Cir. 2001). Smit h’s reliance on that case is misplaced, as it involved a municipal ordinanc e not direc ted to railroa d opera tio n s
. I nstead, the ordinanc e was direc ted at a pr ivate distribution business operating on lease d railroa d proper ty

. 3