Johnson v. Pioneer Railcorp et al

Filing 62

OPINION by U.S. Magistrate Judge Tom Schanzle-Haskins: Plaintiff's Motion to Alter April 13, 2012 Stipulation & Order and for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint 33 is ALLOWED in part and DENIED in part. Plaintiff's request to alter t he Stipulation of Dismissal of Defendant Pioneer Railroad Services, Inc. 15 , and the Text Order entered April 13, 2012, is DENIED. The request to amend the Amended Complaint to add additional claims against Defendant Decatur Junction Railway Co. a s set forth in the proposed Second Amended Complaint attached to the Motion is ALLOWED. Plaintiff Sheryl Johnson is directed to file by April 11, 2014, a revised Second Amended Complaint that contains the allowed additional claims, but does not incl ude Pioneer Railroad Services, Inc. as a defendant. Defendant Decatur Junction Railway Co. is directed to respond to the Second Amended Complaint by May 2, 2014. See written order entered by Magistrate Judge Schanzle-Haskins on 3/28/2014. (LB, ilcd)

E-FILED

Friday, 28 March, 2014 03:25:40 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, PEORIA DIVISION
SHERYL JOHNSON, Administrator of
the Estate of Chris Johnson,
Deceased,

)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
DECATUR JUNCTION RAILWAY, CO., )
)
Defendant.
)

No. 11-cv-1400

OPINION
THOMAS P. SCHANZLE-HASKINS, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE:
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Alter April
13, 2012 Stipulation & Order and for Leave to File Second Amended
Complaint (d/e 33) (Motion). The parties consented to have this case
heard before this Court. Notice, Consent and Reference of a Civil Action to
a Magistrate Judge and Reference Order entered March 24, 2014 (d/e 61).
For the reasons set forth below, the Motion is ALLOWED in part and
DENIED in part.
BACKGROUND
On November 2, 2011, Chris Johnson filed this action against
Defendant Decatur Junction Railway, Co. (DJR), and former Defendant
Pioneer Railcorp, Inc. Complaint (d/e 1). On February 2, 2012, Chris
Page 1 of 10

Johnson filed an Amended Complaint substituting Pioneer Railroad
Services, Inc. (Pioneer Services), for Pioneer Railcorp, Inc., as the second
Defendant. Amended Complaint (d/e 7). Chris Johnson alleged a claim
under the Federal Employer’s Liability Act, 45 U.S.C. § 51 (FELA). Chris
Johnson alleged that he was injured while he was repairing a railroad
locomotive engine operated by DJR on September 23, 2010. The injury
resulted in a loss of his hearing. Johnson alleged that he was employed by
Pioneer Services “and/or” DJR. Amended Complaint, ¶ 7.
On March 6, 2012, Pioneer Services filed Defendant Pioneer Railroad
Services, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint Pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (d/e 10) (Motion to Dismiss). Pioneer Services moved to
dismiss because it was not authorized by the Surface Transportation Board
(STB) to be a common carrier railroad. FELA imposes liability on common
carriers by rail engaged in commerce. 45 U.S.C. § 51. No person may
operate a railroad unless authorized to do so by the STB. See 49 U.S.C.
§ 10901. Pioneer Services stated that it has not been authorized by the
STB to operate a railroad and, as such, is not a common carrier. Thus,
Pioneer Services is not subject to FELA liability. Motion to Dismiss, at 1-2.

Page 2 of 10

Chris Johnson never responded to the Motion to Dismiss. Rather,
Johnson, DJR, and Pioneer Services entered into a stipulation that states
the following:
Now comes, the plaintiff, Chris Johnson, by his attorney,
Ryan S. McCracken, defendant, Pioneer Railroad Services, Inc.
by its attorney, Daniel A. LaKemper, and defendant Decatur
Junction Railway Co., by its attorney, James E. Lozier, and for
the parties (sic) stipulation of dismissal state:
1. Decatur Junction Railway Co. is a railroad company
operating in interstate commerce.
2. Decatur Junction Railway Co. was acting as Chris
Johnson’s employer for Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA)
purposes on September 23, 2010.
3. Pioneer Railroad Services, Inc. was not a FELA
employer of Chris Johnson on September 23, 2010.
WHEREFORE, the parties pray for the Court to enter an
Order dismissing Pioneer Railroad Services, Inc. as a
defendant.
Stipulation of Dismissal of Defendant Pioneer Railroad Services, Inc.
(d/e 15) (Stipulation). Based on the Stipulation, the Court dismissed the
claims against Pioneer Services with prejudice and denied the Motion to
Dismiss as moot. Text Order entered April 13, 2012. Chris Johnson
subsequently died and Sheryl Johnson was substituted in as Administrator
of his estate. Text Order entered July 30, 2013.

Page 3 of 10

Sheryl Johnson now asks to withdraw from paragraph 3 of the
Stipulation. She states that she has learned through discovery that Pioneer
Services may have been Chris Johnson’s employer when he was injured at
work on September 23, 2010. Motion, at 3-4. Pioneer Services opposes
the Motion.
Sheryl Johnson also seeks to amend the Amended Complaint to add
claims that, “the hearing loss was a cause of depression and acute and
chronic alcoholism which lead to Chris Johnson’s death from multiple organ
failure due to acute and chronic alcoholism or (sic) three years duration.”
Motion, ¶ 3. DJR has not responded to this aspect of the Motion, and so, is
deemed to have no opposition. Local Rule 7.1(B)(2). Therefore, Sheryl
Johnson may amend the Amended Complaint to add these claims against
DJR.
ANALYSIS
The issue before the Court is whether to set aside paragraph 3 of the
Stipulation. Sheryl Johnson is correct that the dismissal Text Order
entered April 13, 2012, is an interlocutory order that may be reconsidered
at any time. Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). Reconsideration, however, would only
be appropriate if Sheryl Johnson is allowed to withdraw from paragraph 3
of the Stipulation.
Page 4 of 10

Generally, “a stipulation is binding unless relief from the stipulation is
necessary to avoid ‘manifest injustice’ or the stipulation was entered into
through inadvertence or based on an erroneous view of the facts or law.”
United States v. Wingate, 128 F.3d 1157, 1160 (7th Cir. 1997) (quoting
Graefenhain v. Pabst Brewing Co., 870 F.2d 1198, 1206 (7th Cir. 1998)).
Sheryl Johnson argues that she should be relieved of the Stipulation
because Chris Johnson had an erroneous view of the facts. She states
that information developed in discovery showed that Pioneer Services was
Chris Johnson’s employer on September 23, 2010, the day of the accident.
She states that the evidence she presented in connection with her Motion
for Partial Summary Judgment shows that Pioneer Services supervised him
while he was working on the DJR locomotive. Plaintiffs’ Memorandum in
Support of Her Motion to Alter April 13, 2013 Stipulation & Order and for
Leave to File Second amended Complaint (d/e 34), at 2; see Plaintiff’s
Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (d/e 36) (Summary Judgment
Motion), at 5-7, 16-17.
Pioneer Services may have been an employer of Chris Johnson on
September 23, 2010, but the evidence presented does not show that
Pioneer Services was a “FELA employer.” An employer subject to FELA
must be a, “common carrier by rail.” 45 U.S.C. § 51. A common carrier by
Page 5 of 10

rail is, “one who operates a railroad as a means of carrying for the public,that is to say, a railroad company acting as a common carrier.” Edwards v.
Pacific Fruit Exp. Co., 390 U.S. 538, 540 (1968) (quoting Wells Fargo & Co.
v. Taylor, 254 U.S. 175, 187-88 (1920)). In addition, the term “common
carrier” for purposes of FELA, includes, “the receiver or receivers or other
persons or corporations charged with the duty of the management and
operation of the business of a common carrier.” 45 U.S.C. § 57.
The evidence presented by Sheryl Johnson indicates that DJR
operated the railroad where Chris Johnson was allegedly injured; Chris
Johnson traveled to DJR’s siding to repair railroad engines operated by
DJR, “Chris Johnson and Josh Troutman were sent to Cisco, Illinois –
30 miles outside Decatur, Illinois – to perform inspections and repairs on
locomotives used by the Decatur Junction Railway Company.” Summary
Judgment Motion, 16-17, Plaintiff’s Statement of Undisputed Fact, ¶ 40;
see Plaintiff’s Statement of Undisputed Fact ¶¶ 10, 11, 41. Chris Johnson
further stated in his deposition that a DJR manager was his general
supervisor while he was working on DJR’s locomotives. Pioneer Railroad
Services, Inc.’s Supplemental Memoranda in Opposition to Plaintiff’s
Motion to Alter April 13, 2012 Stipulation & Order for Leave to File Second
Amended Complaint (d/e 57) (Supplemental Memorandum), attached
Page 6 of 10

Excerpt of Deposition of Chris Johnson, at 146-47. Thus, the evidence
indicates that DJR operated a railroad. Furthermore, no evidence indicates
that Pioneer Services acted as a common carrier. As Pioneer points out,
no person may operate a railroad unless authorized to do so by the STB.
49 U.S.C. § 10901. Pioneer Services had no such authorization.
Pioneer Railcorp, Inc.’s website, however, stated that Pioneer
Services managed the operations of Pioneer Railcorp, Inc.’s subsidiary
railroads, which included DJR. Summary Judgment Motion, at 5, Plaintiff’s
Statement of Undisputed Fact, ¶ 4. In light of this statement, the Court
directed the parties to file supplemental memoranda to address whether
Pioneer Services could be deemed to be a common carrier under
45 U.S.C. § 57 as a corporation “charged with the duty of the management
and operation of the business of a common carrier.” Order entered
January 31, 2014 (d/e 56), at 3 (citing Eddings v. Collins Pine Co.,
140 F.Supp. 622, 628 (N.D. Cal. 1956). Pioneer Services filed a
supplemental memorandum. Pioneer Railroad Services, Inc.’s
Supplemental Memoranda in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Alter April
13, 2012 Stipulation & Order for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint
(d/e 57) (Supplemental Memorandum). Sheryl Johnson did not to file a
supplemental memorandum.
Page 7 of 10

Pioneer Services argues that Congress enacted FELA § 57 to
address situations in which a common carrier became insolvent or died. In
those situations, the injured employee would still have a claim against the
receiver, executor, or other administrator. See Cox v. Roth, 348 U.S. 207,
208-09 (1955). Pioneer Services also notes that a corporation is a
“common carrier” under § 57 if it has a duty to manage and operate the
railroad. Pioneer Services argues that it did not operate the railroad; DJR
operated the railroad.
Upon careful review of evidence presented and the applicable law,
the Court agrees with Pioneer Services that it was not a common carrier
under FELA § 57. Section 57 states that the corporation must be “charged
with the duty” to manage and operate the railroad. This language may
imply an obligation or duty created by operation of law or court order.
Pioneer Services was under no such duty. A duty may also arise by
contract or the practice of the parties. Eddings, 140 F.Supp. at 626. In
Eddings, a lumber company was a common carrier for purposes of FELA
because it both owned and operated a railroad. Id., at 626-28. Here, the
evidence presented shows that DJR operated the railroad, not Pioneer
Services. Furthermore, no evidence indicates that Pioneer Services was

Page 8 of 10

under a contractual duty to operate the railroad. Pioneer Services was not
a common carrier.
Thus, Chris Johnson was not under an erroneous view of the facts
when he entered into the Stipulation. DJR was his employer for purposes
of FELA; it was the common carrier by rail for which Chris Johnson
provided maintenance services at the time of the alleged injury. Pioneer
Services may or may not have also been his employer, but Pioneer
Services was not a common carrier, and so, was not a “FELA employer”
liable for the claims raised in this case. The Court sees no basis to disturb
the Stipulation. The request to add Pioneer Services back to the case as a
defendant is denied.
THEREFORE Plaintiff’s Motion to Alter April 13, 2012 Stipulation &
Order and for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint (d/e 33) is
ALLOWED in part and DENIED in part. Plaintiff’s request to alter the
Stipulation of Dismissal of Defendant Pioneer Railroad Services, Inc.
(d/e 15), and the Text Order entered April 13, 2012, is DENIED. The
request to amend the Amended Complaint to add additional claims against
Defendant Decatur Junction Railway Co. as set forth in the proposed
Second Amended Complaint attached to the Motion is ALLOWED.
Plaintiff Sheryl Johnson is directed to file by April 11, 2014, a revised
Page 9 of 10

Second Amended Complaint that contains the allowed additional claims,
but does not include Pioneer Railroad Services, Inc., as a defendant.
Defendant Decatur Junction Railway Co. is directed to respond to the
Second Amended Complaint by May 2, 2014.
ENTER: March 28, 2014

s/ Thomas P. Schanzle-Haskins
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Page 10 of 10