Faulk et al v. Union Pacific Railroad Co

Filing 168

MEMORANDUM ORDER denying 166 Motion for Entry of Judgment under Rule 54(b); granting 166 Motion for Certificate of Appealability re 165 Notice of Appeal, granting 166 Motion to Stay. Signed by Judge Robert G James on 5/20/13. (crt,DickersonSld, D)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
MONROE DIVISION

R.T. FAULK, III, ET AL.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 07-0554

VERSUS

JUDGE ROBERT G. JAMES

UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY

MAG. JUDGE MARK L. HORNSBY

MEMORANDUM ORDER
Pending before the Court is Defendant Union Pacific Railroad Company’s (“Union Pacific”)
“Motion for Entry of Final Judgment Under Rule 54 and/or for Certification that Judgment is
Immediately Appealable and Stay” [Doc. No. 166]. Plaintiffs have not filed a response to the
motion.
On April 22, 2013, Union Pacific filed a notice of appeal [Doc. No. 165] of the Court’s
March 22, 2013 Ruling [Doc. No. 161] and Judgment [Doc. No. 162]. According to Union Pacific,
the parties believe that the Court’s March 22, 2013 Judgment in this case should be final and
appealable and thus Union Pacific moves the Court for entry of final judgment pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). In the alternative, Union Pacific moves the Court for certification
for interlocutory appeal, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).
After consideration, the Court finds that this matter should be certified for interlocutory
appeal. The Court has not resolved all pending claims among the parties. However, this does not
prevent the Court from entering final judgment under Rule 54(b) if it expressly determines that there
is no just reason for delay.
The Court has also considered the language in the opinion of the United States Court of

Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. In its opinion, the Fifth Circuit vacated this Court’s holding that La.
Rev. Stat. 48:394 is constitutional and remanded “for a determination of the respective property
rights of the private landowners and Union Pacific to the private railroad crossings at issue.” [Doc.
No. 133 at p.12]. The Court has now made that determination. However, the Fifth Circuit further
stated that if Union Pacific “has ownership rights over the railroad crossings, the record will be
sufficiently developed at that time to permit a ruling regarding the constitutionality of [La. Rev.
Stat.] 48:394,” indicating that Union Pacific could only challenge the statute if it had ownership
rights. Id. This Court determined that Union Pacific did not have ownership rights over the railroad
crossings. The parties agree that Union Pacific’s servitudes over Plaintiffs’ land constitute real rights
which permit it to challenge the constitutionality of La. Rev. Stat. 48:394, in addition to its challenge
of the Court’s determination of ownership interests. The Fifth Circuit may not agree. Given this
uncertainty, the Court finds that certification for interlocutory appeal, not entry of final judgment,
is appropriate. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Union Pacific’s motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN
PART. To the extent that Union Pacific moves the Court for entry of final judgment, the motion is
DENIED. To the extent that Union Pacific moves the Court for certification for interlocutory appeal
and for a stay, the motion is GRANTED. The Court’s March 22, 2013 Judgment is certified for
interlocutory appeal, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), and amended to include the following
statement: “The Court’s granting of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment and denial of
Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment involve controlling questions of law as to which there
are substantial grounds for differences of opinion, and an immediate appeal from the Court’s
Judgment may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation.”
2

The Court certifies the following questions of law to the United States Court of Appeals for
the Fifth Circuit:
(1)

If Union Pacific does not have ownership rights to the private railroad
crossings, does it have standing to challenge Louisiana Revised Statute
48:394 (“the Act”)?

(2)

If so, is the Act constitutional under the United States and Louisiana
Constitutions?

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all proceedings in this matter are STAYED pending the
outcome of the interlocutory appeal.
MONROE, LOUISIANA, this 20th day of May, 2013.

3