Opinion ID: 2968031
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: A plain, speedy and efficient remedy may be

Text: had in the courts of such State. WILLIAMS v. PROFESSIONAL TRANSPORTATION, INC. 5 28 U.S.C. § 1342 (2000). CSXT argued that, because the district court’s December 1998 order required payment of past due invoices at the invoice rate, the order affected rates chargeable by a public utility and thus ran afoul of the Johnson Act. We disagreed, holding that the order did not resolve the rate interpretation dispute between the parties, rather it directed the parties to submit disputes about the interpretation of the tariff to the Public Service Commission. Williams v. Prof’l Transp., Inc., 294 F.3d 607, 612 (4th Cir. 2002). Instead, we endorsed Williams’ characterization of the court’s order as one merely enforcing a settlement agreement. Williams, 294 F.3d at 612. CSXT also argued that the five-year contract should include a retroactive start date of April 10, 1998, the date the contingency was removed and the settlement took effect. We declined to consider this argument, as CSXT failed to raise it before the district court. Williams, 294 at 614 (citing Muth v. United States, 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir. 1993)). On remand, CSXT interpreted our opinion to mean it needed to pay past due invoices at the invoice rate only after that invoice rate had been submitted to and approved by the PSC. Maintaining its prior position, CSXT continued to pay for services rendered not in the amounts billed in Williams’ invoices (the invoice rate), but at a lower rate it deemed applicable. This lower rate, which we call the N & W rate, was a tariff rate approved by the PSC in a dispute between Williams and another railroad, Norfolk & Western Railway Co. CSXT refused to pay the balance between the N & W rate and the invoice rate, and Williams moved to have the district court enforce its December 1998 order. On March 14, 2003, the district court granted Williams’ motion. It first ordered that CSXT pay Williams $1,891,028.21. This amount represents the difference, including interest, between the charges billed in Williams’ invoices and the amount paid by CSXT during the period from March 6, 1998 (when CSXT began rejecting and discounting the invoices) until October 8, 2002 (when the district court held a hearing on Williams’ motion to enforce the December 1998 order). The order also makes clear that CSXT must continue to pay 6 WILLIAMS v. PROFESSIONAL TRANSPORTATION, INC. Williams’ invoices in the amount billed UNLESS AND UNTIL it secures a new contract with Williams. (emphasis in original). Finally, the district court ordered that the five-year contract should have a retroactive start date of July 23, 2002, the day we issued our mandate in CSXT’s first appeal.