Keokuk Junction Railway Company v. Toledo, Peoria & Western Railway Corp.
Filing
21
OPINION entered by U.S. Magistrate Judge Byron G. Cudmore: Plaintiff Keokuk Junction Railway Company's Motion for Joinder of Parties 18 DENIED. See written order. (LB, ilcd)
E-FILED
Thursday, 30 August, 2012 10:15:41 AM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, PEORIA DIVISION
KEOKUK JUNCTION RAILWAY
COMPANY,
Plaintiff,
v.
TOLEDO, PEORIA & WESTERN
RAILWAY CORP.,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 11-cv-1139
OPINION
BYRON G. CUDMORE, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE:
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Keokuk Junction
Railway Company’s (KJRC) Motion for Joinder of Parties (d/e 18) (Motion).
KJRC brought this action against Defendant Toledo, Peoria & Western
Railway Corp. (TP&W) to enforce an administrative decision of the Surface
Transportation Board (STB). Complaint (d/e 1), Exhibit A, STB Finance
Docket No. 34335, Decision entered October 28, 2004 (Initial Decision), as
modified by Exhibit B, Affirmance on Reconsideration entered February 7,
2005 (Affirmance), at 15 (The Initial Decision and Affirmance are
hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Decision”). The Decision
directed TP&W to sell to KJRC its interest in a seventy-six mile rail line
from LaHarpe, Illinois, to Hollis, Illinois (Line), for $4,165,742.00. Initial
Page 1 of 6
Decision, at 25; Affirmance, at 15. The Decision was affirmed on appeal.
Toledo, Peoria & Western Ry v. Surface Transportation Bd., 462 F.3d 734
(7th Cir. 2006), cert. denied, 549 U.S. 1278 (2007).
The Complaint alleges that TP&W has failed to comply with the
Decision. KJRC alleges that TP&W has refused to convey its interest in
the Line to KJRC by quit claim deed and refused to deliver other
documents related to ownership. KJRC also alleges that TP&W continued
to collect rents from tenants on the Line after the Decision. KJRC asks the
Court to order TP&W to convey the Line to KJRC by quit claim deed, and
to deliver related ownership documents. KJRC also seeks an accounting.
Complaint, at 2-3.
KJRC brings this action under 49 U.S.C. § 11704(a), which
authorizes a private cause of action to enforce a decision of the STB.
Section 11704(a)states,
(a) A person injured because a rail carrier providing
transportation or service subject to the jurisdiction of the Board
under this part does not obey an order of the Board, except an
order for payment of money, may bring a civil action in a United
States District Court to enforce that order under this subsection.
49 U.S.C. § 11704(a); see Report and Recommendation entered August
22, 2011 (d/e 10), at 6-7.1
1
KJRC alleges that it is a person under the Act. Complaint, ¶ 6; see 1 U.S.C.
§§ 1, 10102(4).
Page 2 of 6
The Motion asks the Court to join certain parties that claim an interest
in the Line (Proposed Parties) under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 19
and 20(a)(2). KJRC and TP&W, however, both agree that the Proposed
Parties are not parties that are required to be joined under Rule 19.
Motion ¶ 6; Defendant Toledo, Peoria & western Railway Corp.’s Amended
Response to Motion for Joinder of Parties (d/e 20) (TP&W Response)
¶¶ 1-3. The Court agrees.
Rule 19 authorizes joinder when a party is required to be joined to
provide complete relief to the parties or to protect the interests of the party
to be joined. Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(a). The Court can provide complete relief
to KJRC without the Proposed Parties. The Complaint asks the Court to
order TP&W to comply with the Decision and to account for rents received.
The Complaint does not ask this Court to adjudicate the validity of any
interest in property in the Line. The only issue is compliance with the
Decision. None of the Proposed Parties is bound by the Decision because
none was a party to the administrative proceeding; the Decision does not
order KJRC or TP&W to take any action to with respect to the Proposed
Parties; and the Decision does not order the Proposed Parties to do
anything. Thus, the Court can give KJRC complete relief without the
Proposed Parties. If KJRC prevails, TP&W is to convey its interest in the
Page 3 of 6
Line by quit claim deed, deliver the related documents, and account for the
rents.
The Proposed Parties’ claims of interest will not be affected by the
outcome of this case. They are not bound either by the Decision or by the
judgment of this Court in this case. Any of the Proposed Parties may still
assert an interest in the Line. If KJRC prevails, the Proposed Parties may
assert the interest against KJRC instead of TP&W, but they still may assert
their claims. Thus, joinder under Rule 19 is not appropriate.
KJRC asks the Court to allow permissive joinder of the proposed
parties under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20(a)(2). Rule 20(a)(2)
allows permissive joinder if the plaintiff’s right to relief against the party to
be joined arises out of the same transaction as the claims against the
current defendant and a question of law or fact common to the defendant
and the party to be joined will arise in the action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(1) &
(a)(2). TP&W argues that KJRC does not assert a right to relief against the
Proposed Parties and no common questions of law or fact exist. The Court
agrees.
The Complaint does not allege a claim against any Proposed Party.
KJRC brings a one-count complaint under § 11704(a). Section 11704(a)
authorizes the Court to enforce the Decision. The Proposed Parties are
Page 4 of 6
not bound by the Decision, the Decision does not order KJRC or TP&W to
take any action with respect to the Proposed Parties, and the Decision
does not order the Proposed Parties to do anything. KJRC’s Complaint,
therefore, does not assert a right to relief against any Proposed Party.
The Complaint also only raises questions of law or fact related to
whether TP&W complied with the Decision, not to the quality of any interest
in property. The Decision directs TP&W to sell its interest in the Line to
KJRC. The Decision does not direct TP&W to quiet the title or otherwise
challenge any other claims of interests in the Line. The Proposed Parties’
possible interests in the Line, therefore, are not relevant to whether TP&W
complied with the Decision.
KJRC seems to be inviting the Court to adjudicate the Proposed
Parties’ interests in the Line. The Complaint does not allege a count or
claim to adjudicate Proposed Parties’ claims of interests in the Line. The
Complaint only alleges a claim to enforce the Decision under § 11704(a).
KJRC fails to demonstrate that the current Complaint asserts a claim of a
right to relief against any of the Proposed Parties, and fails to show that a
common question of law or fact exists. Joinder of the Proposed Parties to
the claim asserted in the current Complaint is not appropriate under Rule
20(a)(2).
Page 5 of 6
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Keokuk Junction Railway Company’s Motion
for Joinder of Parties (d/e 18) is DENIED.
ENTER:
August 30, 2012
s/ Byron G. Cudmore
BYRON G. CUDMORE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Page 6 of 6
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?