Opinion ID: 2968031
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: CSXT would pay Williams $140,000;

Text: 2. CSXT and Williams would enter into a five-year exclusive, noncancellable, but transferrable contract that would make Williams the exclusive provider of intrastate crew transportation services in certain West Virginia areas; and 3. CSXT agreed to dismiss its pending PSC overcharge case against Williams. The parties at settlement left open the rate to be paid under the five-year contract, agreeing to meet and negotiate such a rate. The settlement was contingent upon Williams’ success in another PSC proceeding, No. 30020-97-FC, that sought to declare dormant the operating authority of one of Williams’ competitors. Williams did prevail in No. 30020-97-FC, removing the contingency on April 10, 1998, but negotiations proved unsuccessful to fix the contract rate which had been left open as agreed. In addition, while CSXT initially paid Williams for some post-settlement services in the amounts billed in the invoices, in March 1998 it began rejecting some invoices and paying others at a lower rate. Williams moved to enforce the settlement agreement in June, 1998, and the district court granted the motion on December 11, 1998. The district court found that CSXT had breached the agreement by prolonging rate negotiations, refusing to pay invoices submitted after the settlement agreement, filing a new overcharge case before the PSC, and supporting McLine Transportation, another competitor of Williams, before the PSC. The district court ordered CSXT to: CSXT was later made a party to the case. 4 WILLIAMS v. PROFESSIONAL TRANSPORTATION, INC. 1. Pay the $140,000 plus interest owed to Williams under the May 1997 settlement agreement. 2. Make immediate payment to Williams of all past due invoices, with interest, at the rates specified in Williams’ current tariff in the amounts set forth in those invoices. These payments were to continue until the new contract was executed. 3. Enter into the five-year contract as mandated by the May 1997 settlement, using the rate contained in Williams’ current tariff unless, and until, the parties agree on a new, or different, rate. Any dispute as to the tariff will be submitted to the [PSC] for resolution. CSXT appealed, and on September 18, 2000, it also moved for a stay of the district court’s order. We granted the stay on October 6, 2000. On appeal, CSXT argued that the district court’s order exceeded its jurisdiction, in violation of the Johnson Act of 1934, because it resolved a public utility rate dispute. The Johnson Act provides that: The district courts shall not enjoin, suspend or restrain the operation of, or compliance with, any order affecting rates chargeable by a public utility and made by a State administrative agency or rate-making body of a State political subdivision where:
citizenship . . .; and,
commerce; and,
notice and hearing; and,
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.