FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T AUGUST 5, 2010 J OHN L EY CL ERK [PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

No. 0 9- 16 07 9
D. C. Dock etNo. 0 8- 00 08 9- CV-5 MADGLEAN PACE, MARVIN PAC E, CHARLES PACE, MELVIN PACE, SHELLEY PACE, JR ., Pl ai nt iff s- App el la nt s,
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 urt fo r th e So ut he rnDis tri ctof Ge or gi a (Au gu st5, 2 01 0) Befo re DUBINA, Ch ie f Ju dg e, PRYOR an d M ARTIN, Cir cu itJu dg es . DUBINA, Ch ie f Ju dg e:App el la nt s, M ad gl ean Pace , Marv in Pace , Charle s Pa ce, Me lv in Pace , and

Sh el le y Pace , Jr., (“ th e Pac e fam il y ”), ap pe al fro m th e d is tri ctco urt’s g ran t o f
su m m ary jud gm en t i n fa vo r of CSX Tran sp orta ti on (“ CSX”) on th ei r st at e la w
nu is an ce cl ai m

st emm in g fr om

CSX’s co ns tru ct io n a ndus e o f a s id e tr ackad jacen t to pro pe rty owne d b y

th e Pac e fam il y

in Am br os e, Geo rg ia . The Pa ce fam il y arg ue s t ha t t he di stric t co urt erredin fin di ng th atth ei r cl ai m is pre em pt edby
se ct io n 1 05 01 (b )(2 ) of

th e In te rs ta te Co m

m erce Co m

m is si on Term in at io n Actof 19 95 , 49 U.S.C. § 1 01 01 –1 19 08 (20 06 ). Afte r rev ie win g t he reco rd , read in g t he pa rti es ’ br ie fs , andha vi ng th e be ne fitof o ral arg um en t, we af firm th e d is tri ctco urt’s g ran t o f su m m ary jud gm en t in fav orof C SX. I. BACKG ROUND The Pace fam il y

own s l an d i n Am

br os e, Geo rg ia , th atis ad

jacen t t o a rai lro adrig htof wa y

he ldby CSX. T he m ai nl in e tr ackha s b een in co nt in uo us op erat io n fo r ov er 1 00 y ears an d i s cu rren tl y us edby trai ns to carry

a va rie ty of go od s i nc lu di ng au to m ob il es , gra in , con st ru ct io n m at eri al s, an d i nt erm od al frei gh t. Unt il 20 06 , th e tr ackab ut ti ng th e Pac e fam il y ’s pro pe rty was a s in gl e tr ack
us edby trai ns trave li ng in bo th di rect io ns . In Se pt em be r 20 06 , CSX co ns tru ct eda
ro ug hl y two -m il e-l on g s id e tr ackpa ral le l t o t he m ai nl in e tr ack . The s id e tr ack

2al lo ws fa st er trai ns to pa ss th e sl owe r tr ai ns an d t rai ns tra ve li ng in di ffer en t

di rect io ns to pa ss on e an ot he r. The p ur po se of t hi s p art ic ul ar s id e tr ackis to so lv e th e tr affi c p ro bl em s caus edby a six te en -m il e st ret chof m ai nl in e tr ackth atwas pr ev io us ly w it ho uta si de tra ck
. InJan uary

20 08 , th e Pac e fam il y

fil edsu itin Supe rio r Co urt i n C of fee Co un ty, Geo rg ia , all eg in g t ha t t he op erat io n o f th e si de tra ckcau se d a n i nc reas e in
no is e an d s m ok e due to th e tr affi c o n the tra ck an d m ad e th ei r la ndvi rtu al ly
un us ab le . CSX rem ov edth e cas e to fed eral co urt i n No ve m be r 20 08 . In Jul y 20 09 , CSX m ov edforsu m m ary jud gm en t o n t he ba si s o f fed eral pre em pt io n a nd th e d is tri ctco urt g ran te d t he m ot io n. Th is ap pe al fol lo wed
. II . STANDARD OF REVIEW Thi s co urt re vi ews de no vo a d is tri ctco urt’s g ran t o f su m m ary jud gm en t, Sk op v. Cit y o f At la nt a , 48 5 F .3d11 30 , 11 36 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ), an d re vi ews de
no vo a di st ric t co urt’s co nc lu si on th atfed eral law p reem pt s a s ta te law cl ai m , Cli

ff v. Pay co Gen. Am. Cr edit s, In c. , 36 3 F .3d11 13 , 11 21 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ). II I. DI SCUSSI ON The Supr em e Co urt h as id en ti fie d t hr ee ty pe s o f pr eem

pt io n: (1) ex pr es s pr eem pt io n; (2) fie ldpre em

pt io n; an d (3 ) co nf

li ctpre em

pt io n. Th is Th at

&Th e Oth er Gif t & To ba cco , Inc . v. Cob b C ou nt y, Ga. , 28 5 F .3d13 19 , 13 22 (11 th Cir
.
320 02 ). The t y pe of p reem

pt io n re li edup on by the di st ric t co urt i n g ran ti ng
su m m ary jud gm en t, ex pr es s p reem pt io n, o ccurs when Co ng res s h as ex pl ic it ly in di cat edit s i nt en ti on to pre em ptst at e la w inth e te xtof t he st atut e. Eng lish v. Gen . Elec. Co

. , 49 6 U.S. 7 2, 7 8– 79 , 11 0 S . Ct. 2 27 0, 2 27 5 (1 99 0) . If Co ng res s do es no t ex pl ic it ly preem ptst at e la w, ho wev er, p reem pt io n s ti ll oc cu rs when fed eral reg ul at io n i n aleg is la ti ve fie ldis so pe rv as iv e th atwe canreas on ab ly infe r th atCo ng res s l eftno roo m for th e st at es to supp le m en t i t, kno wn as fie ld pr eem pt io n. Id. at 7 9, 1 10 S. Ct. at22 75 . Even when Co ng res s h as ne it he r
ex pr es sl y pre em pt edst at e la w no r oc cupi edth e fi el d, s ta te law i s p reem pt edwhen itactua ll y co nf li ct s wi th fed eral law. Id . Con fli ctpre em pt io n a ris es eit he r whe n i t is im po ss ib le to co m

pl y with b ot h fe de ral an d s ta te law o r whe n s ta te law “ st an ds
as anob st acl e” t o a ch ie vi ng th e o bjec ti ve s o f th e fed eral law. Cr os byv. Na t’l For ei gn Tra de Co un ci l , 53 0 U.S. 3 63 , 37 2– 73 , 12 0 S . Ct. 2 28 8, 2 29 4 (2 00 0) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d)
. The st atut e atis su e in th is cas e, th e In te rs ta te Co m m erce Co m

m is si on Term in at io n Act(ICC TA), pro vi de s i n s ect io n 1 05 01 (b ) th atjuri sd ic ti on of t he Su rfac e Tran sp orta ti on Bo ard(STB) i s ex cl us iv e o ve r “ th e co ns tru ct io n, acqui si ti on , op erat io n, ab an do nm en t, o r di sc on ti nu an ce o f sp ur , in du stria l, t eam , swi tc hi ng , or s id e tr ack s, o r fac il it ie s, ev enif t he tra ck s ar e lo cat ed , or i nt en de d t o

4be lo cat ed , ent ire ly in o ne Sta te [.]” 49 U.S.C. § 1 05 01 (b )(2 ). It al so st at es th at

“ [e]xce ptas o th erwi se pro vi de d i n t hi s p art , th e rem ed ie s p ro vi de d u nd er thi s p art wit h re sp ectto reg ul at io n o f rai l t ran sp orta ti onare ex cl us iv e an d p reem ptth e
rem ed ie s p ro vi de d u nd er Fe de ral or S ta te law.” Id . § 1 05 01 (b ). The pa rti es ag ree t ha t co ns tru ct io n andop erat io n o f a s id e tr ackis co ve red by the ICCTA; ho wev er, the Pace fam il y arg ue s t ha t i ts nu is an ce ac ti onfor
m on et ary da m ag es is no t p reem pt edby the ICCTA, b ecau se itis no t d ire ct ly rel at edto th e o pe rat io n a ndus e o f th e si de tra ck . The Pa ce fa m il y urg es th e co urt to tak e a rem edy -cen te redap pr oa ch an d fi ndanact io n i s o nl y pre em pt edwher e a
rem edy is so ug htth atwou ldde m an d c ha ng es in th e rai lro ad ’s cor e o pe rat io ns . The di st ric t co urt d is ag reedwith t he Pace fam il y ’s fram in g o f th e is su e an d
co nc lu de d t ha t b ecau se th e Pac e fam il y so ug hta rem edy

of a ny sort fo r th e
co ns tru ct io n a ndus e o f a s id e tr ack , th e cl ai m is ex pr es sl y

pre em pt edby the ICCTA. W e ag ree wi th th e d is tri ctco urt’s co nc lu si on . Whe n t hi s co urt co ns id ers pr eem pt io n i ss ue s, “ we st artwith t he ass um pt io n t ha t t he hi st or ic po li ce p owe rs of th e st at es are n otsupe rs ed edby feder al law unl es s p reem pt io n i s t he cle ar an d
m an ife stpu rp os e o f Co ng res s.” Cl if f , 36 3 F .3dat 1 12 2. Here , th e la ng ua ge of
se ct io n 1 05 01 (b ) pl ai nl y

co nv ey s C on gr es s’s i nt en t t o p reem ptall st at e la w cla im s

5pe rta in in g t o t he op erat io n o r co ns tru ct io n o f a s id e tr ack . Accor di ng ly, we ho ld

th atth e Pac e fam il y ’s st at e la w nu is an ce cl ai m form on et ary rel ie f is ex pr es sl y pr eem pt edby the ICCTA. Ourho ld in g i s al so supp orte d b y pe rs ua si ve au th or it y . The Su rfac e Tran sp orta ti on Bo ardha s t ak enth e p os it io n tha t s ta te law n ui sa nc e cl ai m s ar e pr eem pt edby the ICCTA. Se e, e.g ., Mark La ng e , S.T.B. Fin an ce 3 50 37 , 20 08 W L 21 95 83 , at * 3 (S .T.B. Jan . 28 , 20 08 ) (fi nd in g s ta te law n ui sa nc e cl ai m see ki ng da m ag es of $ 20 ,00 0 i s p reem pt edby ICCTA). Furt he r, al th ou gh no cir cu itco urt ha s d is cu ss edth e p reem

pt iv e sc op e o f th e ICC TA inth e co nt ex t o f a s ta te law
nu is an ce cl ai m , a Fi fth Cir cu itcas e st ro ng ly sup po rts ou r ho ld in g t ha t t he Pace 1 fam il y ’s nu is an ce cl ai m

is pre em pt ed . InFri be rg

v. Ka ns as Cit

y S ou th ern Rai lw ay, Co. , 26 7 F .3d43 9, 4 44 (5t h C ir. 2 00 1) , th e Fi fth Cir cu itrev ers eda jury
ve rd ic t en te redag ai ns t a r ai lway com pany ona bu si ne ss own er’s s ta te law
ne gl ig en ce cl ai m s s te m

m in g fr om

th e rai lway’ s ex pans io n a ndus e o f a s id e tr ack
.

There is a First Circuit ca se deny ing r emoval jurisdiction over a state law nuisanc e cla im 1 beca use the c laim was not completely pree mpted by

the I CCTA. See F

ayard v. N.E. Ve hicle Servs., LLC , 533 F.3d 42, 47 ( 1st Cir. 2008). Compl ete pr eemption, as a narr ow exception to the well-plea ded complaint rule , car ries a higher bur den than pr oving a defe nse base d on pree mption. See e .g., Conn. State Dental Ass’n v. Anthem Health Plans, Inc. , 591 F.3d 1337, 1344 ( 11th Cir. 2009). The F irst Circuit concluded that “ pree mption may well be a defe nse to . . . nuisance claims, but the conditions have not bee n met to authorize removal through the extreme and unusual outcome of c omplete pre emption.” Fayard, 533 F.3d at 49. The F irst Circuit noted in dicta that nuisanc e cla ims seekingmonetary damag es ar e likely

pree mpted by

the I CCTA in the same wa y as cla ims seekinga modification of the railroa d’s oper ations. Id
. 6Sp eci fic al ly, th e b us in es s o wne r co m pl ai ne d tha t t he rai lway’ s d eci si on to ex te nd th e si de tra ckres ul te d i n l on ge r an d m or e fre qu en t t rai ns , whi choft enob st ru ct ed
cu st om ers ’ acce ss to th e b us in es s. Id . at 4 40 –4 1. Th e b us in es s ev en tu al ly clo se d. Id . The Fi fth Cir cu ithe ldth atth e b us in es s o wne r’s st at e la w to rt c la im s wer e pr eem pt edby the ICCTA, co nc lu di ng th at“ [n ]oth in g i n . . . th e al l-e nc om pa ss in g la ng ua ge of t he ICCTA’s p reem pt io n c laus e p erm it [s ] th e fed eral st atut e to be ci rcu m ve nt edby allo win g l iabi li ty to ac cru e u nd er s ta te co m m on law, wh ere tha t li ab il it y ari se s fr om

a rai lro ad ’s eco no m ic de ci si on s s uc h a s t ho se pe rta in in g t o tra in len gt h, s pe edor s ch edul in g.” Id . at 4 44
. The same can ce rta in ly be sa idin th is cas e: to pe rm itm on et ary li ab il it y to
accrue un de r a s ta te law n ui sa nc e cl ai m wher e th atli ab il it y

is ba se d o n d eci si on s th e ICC TA pu rp os efu ll y

free d fr om

ou ts id e reg ul at io n wo ul d c on tra di ctth e la ng ua ge an d p ur

po se of t he ICCTA. The ICCTA ex pr es sl y pre em pt s s ta te
rem ed ie s i nv ol vi ng th e o pe rat io n o f th e si de tra ck . There fo re, we wil l n otpe rm it la nd own ers to cir cu m

ve ntth atCo ng res si on al de ci si on th ro ug h s ta te law n ui sa nc e cl ai m s. IV. CONCLUSI ON Fo r th e ab ov e-s ta te d re as on s, we af firm th e d is tri ctco urt’s g ran t o f su m m ary jud gm en t i n fa vo r of

CSX o n p reem

pt io n g ro un ds
. AFFIRMED. 7