CSX Transportation, Inc. v. United States of America

Filing 37

ORDER denying 31 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Magistrate Judge G. R. Smith on 6/30/2014. (loh)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
SAVANNAH DIVISION
CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC.,
Plaintiff,
Case No. CV413-208

V.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant.

ORDER
CSX Transportation, Inc. (CSX) sued the United States in tort and
contract based upon the U.S. Army's failure to secure several of CSX's
rail cars that were looted by local thieves, causing substantial losses.
Doc. 14. The government moved to dismiss, arguing that CSX's tort
claim fails and that its contract claim can only be litigated in the Court
of Federal Claims (CFC). Doc. 17. It also moved to stay all discovery
pending a ruling on the dismissal motion. Doc. 25. This Court denied
that stay motion, doc. 27, and the government now moves to reconsider.'

1

A motion for reconsideration is appropriate if the moving party can show: "(1)
there has been an intervening change in the law, (2) new evidence has been
discovered that was not previously available to the parties at the time the original
order was entered, or (3) reconsideration is necessary to correct a clear error of law or

Doe. 31.
The government sought the stay to "allow the parties to determine
what cause of action will be litigated and in what court, and [thus] focus
and narrow the scope of discovery." Doe. 25 at 2. But "there is no
question," this Court concluded, "that the case will survive defendant's
motion to dismiss in one forum or the other," so a discovery stay was not
appropriate (for discovery will not be "wasted"). Doe. 27 at 2. Now the
government insists that CSX could have filed its contract claim with the
CFC, that this Court otherwise lacks jurisdiction to hear such a claim
since it exceeds $10,000 in value, and that in any event CSX should go
the CFC route, though it first must make a demand from the
"contracting officer," doe. 31 at 3, for "which [CSX] may be paid,
relieving the [government] and this Court of the burden of addressing
this lawsuit further." Doe. 36 at 2.
Boiled down, the government insists that CSX must
administratively exhaust its contract claim under the Contract Disputes

prevent manifest injustice." Pennamon v. United Bank, 2009 WL 2355816, at *1
(M.D. Ga. July 28, 2009). "[A] motion for reconsideration does not provide an
opportunity to simply reargue the issue the Court has once determined."
Id.
(quoting Am. Ass'n of People with Disabilities v. Hood, 278 F.Supp.2d 1337, 1340
(M.D. Fla.2003)); see also Wilchombe v. TeeVee Toons, Inc., 555 F.3d 949, 957 (11th
Cir. 2009).
2

Act (CDA), 41 U.S.C. § 7101 et seq., while CSX counters that the CDA
applies only to procurement contracts, not the agreement at issue here.
Doe. 34 at 3. And even were that the case, CSX further contends, its
claim accrued in 2011, so it has years to travel the CDA route. Doe. 34 at
3; see also 41 U.S.C. § 7103(a)(4)(A) ("Each claim by a contractor against
the Federal Government relating to a contract . . . shall be submitted
within 6 years after the accrual of the claim."); Affiliated Construction

Group, Inc. v. United States, 115 Fed. Cl. 607, 614 n. 8 (Fed. Cl. 2014)
("the CDA's statute of limitations is subject to tolling").
The discovery obtained here, if favorable, could help CSX obtain
the relief it seeks without burdening the CFC with a new contract action.
Hence, it most likely would not be wasted. More fundamentally, a
"preliminary peak" at the motion to dismiss suggests that CSX's tort
claims may survive. 2 For that matter, the CFC lacks jurisdiction to hear
tort claims, while this Court does not.

Capelouto v. United States, 99

Fed. Cl. 682, 688-89 (Ct. Cl. 2011). The dispute is hardly as clear-cut as
2

CSX asserts that even after putting the Army on notice that certain items were
stolen from its railcars held at two unprotected rail sidings, the Army failed to take
any additional steps to secure the railcars, which caused further losses. Doc. 14
(amended complaint); doe. 18 at 3-4 (response to summary judgment motion). While
the United States insists that any "duty" arose solely from the parties' contract, it is
not certain that defendant will prevail on this point. See doe. 18 at 17-19 (CSX's
explication of its independent, bailment-based tort claim -- a showing not rebutted by
the government, doe. 36).
3

defendant represents. Defendant's motion for reconsideration (doc. 31)
is therefore DENIED.
SO ORDERED this

30

day of June, 2014.

UNITED ATESGISTiUDGE
SOUTHE N DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

rd