Murray et al v. Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation
| Elaine K. Murray and Ruth Levens |
| Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation |
| 1:2017cv10608 |
| April 10, 2017 |
| US District Court for the District of Massachusetts |
| Boston Office |
| Middlesex |
| Patti B. Saris |
| All Other Real Property |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2201 |
| None |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
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)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Massachusetts District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
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.
