Murray et al v. Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation

Filing 26

Chief Judge Patti B. Saris: ORDER entered. Plaintiffs Elaine Murray and Ruth Levens seek a declaratory judgment that the Newton Lower Falls Branch Rail Line, which runs behind their homes, is an abandoned line. The Massachusetts Department of Conse rvation and Recreation (Department) moves to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), arguing that the Surface Transportation Board (STB) has exclusive jurisdiction over questions of abandonment (Docket No. 8 ). After hearing, the Departments motion to dismiss is ALLOWED.Plaintiffs first sought relief via a quiet title action in state court, but the state court dismissed the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, finding that the threshold question of whether the rail line was abando ned fell within the STBs exclusive jurisdiction. Murray v. Department of Conservation and Recreation, 55 N.E.3d 420, 425 (Mass. 2016). Plaintiffs next turned to this Court, rather than the STB, prompting the Departments motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Docket No. 8. After hearing, the Court invited the STB to weigh in on the dispute regarding its jurisdiction on the question of abandonment. Docket No. 21. The STB filed a persuasive brief as amicus curiae arguing tha t its jurisdiction is exclusive on the question of abandonment. Docket No. 24. Specifically, the STB takes the position, based on the undisputed evidence, that the rail line in question was not previously abandoned pursuant to the terms of the Region al Rail Reorganization Act of 1973, Pub. L. No. 93-236, 87 Stat. 985 (1974) (3R Act). See Docket No. 24 at 69 (citing Regional Railroad Cases, 419 U.S. 102, 11617 (1974)). This construction of the complex statutory scheme is entitled to deference. Se e Chevron USA, Inc. v. NRDC, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 84244 (1984).The Court agrees with the STB that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction to grant the relief Plaintiffs seek. Because Plaintiffs are on the wrong track, the Court ALLOWS the Departments motion to dismiss (Docket No. 8 ). Assuming the Court has jurisdiction to grant Plaintiffs' request to declare the Departments deed invalid, the Court denies that request. (Geraldino-Karasek, Clarilde)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

_______________________________
)
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF
)
CONSERVATION AND RECREATION,
)
)
Defendant.
)
_______________________________)
ELAINE K. MURRAY and
RUTH LEVENS,

Civil Action
No. 17-10608-PBS

ORDER
October 11, 2017
Saris, C.J.
ORDER
Plaintiffs Elaine Murray and Ruth Levens seek a declaratory
judgment that the Newton Lower Falls Branch Rail Line, which
runs behind their homes, is an abandoned line. The Massachusetts
Department of Conservation and Recreation (“Department”) moves
to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), arguing that the
Surface Transportation Board (“STB”) has exclusive jurisdiction
over questions of abandonment (Docket No. 8). After hearing, the
Department’s motion to dismiss is ALLOWED.
Plaintiffs first sought relief via a quiet title action in
state court, but the state court dismissed the action for lack
1

of subject-matter jurisdiction, finding that the threshold
question of whether the rail line was abandoned fell within the
STB’s exclusive jurisdiction. Murray v. Department of
Conservation and Recreation, 55 N.E.3d 420, 425 (Mass. 2016).
Plaintiffs next turned to this Court, rather than the STB,
prompting the Department’s motion to dismiss for lack of
subject-matter jurisdiction. Docket No. 8. After hearing, the
Court invited the STB to weigh in on the dispute regarding its
jurisdiction on the question of abandonment. Docket No. 21. The
STB filed a persuasive brief as amicus curiae arguing that its
jurisdiction is exclusive on the question of abandonment. Docket
No. 24. Specifically, the STB takes the position, based on the
undisputed evidence, that the rail line in question was not
previously abandoned pursuant to the terms of the Regional Rail
Reorganization Act of 1973, Pub. L. No. 93-236, 87 Stat. 985
(1974) (3R Act). See Docket No. 24 at 6–9 (citing Regional
Railroad Cases, 419 U.S. 102, 116–17 (1974)). This construction
of the complex statutory scheme is entitled to deference. See
Chevron USA, Inc. v. NRDC, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 842–44 (1984).
The Court agrees with the STB that it lacks subject-matter
jurisdiction to grant the relief Plaintiffs seek. Because
Plaintiffs are on the wrong track, the Court ALLOWS the
Department’s motion to dismiss (Docket No. 8). Assuming the

2

Court has jurisdiction to grant Plaintiffs’ request to declare
the Department’s deed invalid, the Court denies that request.

/s/ PATTI B. SARIS
Patti B. Saris
Chief United States District Judge

3