Opinion ID: 2973620
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Absence of a Reasonable Request

Text: The STB dismissed Terminal’s complaint because it found that Terminal’s “supporting documents . . . fail[ed] to show that any shipper requested service from CSX[] between the date of the bridge damage and the date of the abandonment.” See 49 U.S.C. § 11701(b) (“The Board may dismiss a complaint it determines does not state reasonable grounds for investigation and action.”). The STB has discretion in determining whether an entity has made a reasonable request for service. -6- No. 05-3788 Terminal Warehouse v. CSX Transportation Granite State Concrete Co., Inc. v. Surface Transp. Bd., 417 F.3d 85, 92 (1st Cir. 2005) (“[S]ection 11101 does not define what would constitute adequate service on reasonable request . . . . The STB has been given broad discretion to conduct case-by-case fact-specific inquiries to give meaning to these terms, which are not self-defining, in the wide variety of factual circumstances encountered.”). The STB correctly found that Terminal pointed to nothing to show that it (or any other shipper) actually requested service during the embargo. Terminal alleged in its complaint that its counsel’s letter to CSX on June 13, 2003 “requested CSX immediately restore transportation services . . . and immediately provide transportation rail services to Terminal Warehouse.” This “request,” however, was made after May 23, 2003, the date on which CSX consummated its abandonment and effectively ended its duty to provide service on the line. In addition, the letter refers only to abstract potential transportation needs, rather than identifying any imminent need for service. During the embargo, Terminal decided not to bid on one project, and it was not selected as the contractor for another. Terminal blames these missed opportunities on the lack of rail service and cites these two projects as evidence of the damages that it incurred as a result of CSX’s allegedly illegal embargo. But Terminal does not allege that it requested service from CSX after learning of these opportunities, or even that it consulted CSX regarding the potential availability of rail service for either of the two opportunities. Terminal’s complaint alleged that “other affected shippers” requested service. But the -7- No. 05-3788 Terminal Warehouse v. CSX Transportation complaint seeks a finding that CSX “refus[ed] to provide transportation reasonably requested by Complainant.” (Emphasis added.) Further, the three documents on which Terminal relies for this statement do not support it. Akron’s Deputy Mayor’s affidavit does not identify any shippers that requested service from CSX. The Ohio Rail Development Commission’s post-consummation letter to the STB likewise does not identify any shippers that requested service; rather it asks the STB “to ensure the preservation of the rail infrastructure . . . for all current and future rail-dependent users.” Similarly, the affidavit of B & F Polymers’s president,3 discussing the harm B & F will suffer “if this rail abandonment is not revoked,” does not indicate that either B & F or Terminal requested service from CSX. Finally, Terminal proffers an equitable argument that it did not request service from CSX because it was lulled into inaction when a CSX employee told Terminal’s president that CSX “would likely” repair the line. But, as the STB pointed out in its decision on Terminal’s Petition to Reconsider, Terminal’s position that “it would have made a request for service but for [CSX’s] equivocal statement” is unconvincing. Terminal’s December 2002 e-mail to one of its potential customers belies its contention that it relied on any statement from CSX throughout the embargo period: “The Metro Regional Transit Authority is trying to buy the line from . . . CSX and we are discussing the reconnection of rail service from the north. Even if we work that out, it will be quite some time before the connection is made. My guess is at least 1 year.” Further, a February 14, 2003 3 B & F Polymers is a company that, at the time of the track damage and abandonment, was indefinitely storing two “hopper cars” on the line at Terminal’s facility. -8- No. 05-3788 Terminal Warehouse v. CSX Transportation letter from Terminal’s president indicates that Terminal knew of CSX’s intention to abandon the line at least a month before CSX filed its notice of exemption. Terminal did not show that it reasonably requested service from CSX, nor is Terminal entitled to relief on equitable grounds. Therefore, the STB did not act arbitrarily and capriciously or abuse its discretion when it concluded that Terminal’s complaint did not “state reasonable grounds for investigation and action.” 49 U.S.C. § 11701(b).