United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division
ORDER
HON.
JANE MAGNUS-STINSON, CHIEF JUDGE.
Plaintiff
Indiana Transportation Museum, Inc.
(“ITM”) owns several trains which it has
operated on a rail line owned by Defendant Hoosier Heritage
Port Authority (“HHPA”) that runs
through the cities of Fishers and Noblesville, Indiana. In
2016, ITM was prohibited from operating its trains on HHPA
tracks, and this lawsuit followed. Presently pending is a
Motion to Dismiss filed by HHPA, [Filing No. 35],
which is now ripe for the Court's decision.
I.
Standard
of Review
“Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) allows a party to move to
dismiss a claim for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction.” Hallinan v. Fraternal Order of
Police of Chicago Lodge No. 7, 570 F.3d 811, 820 (7th
Cir. 2009). The burden is on the plaintiff to prove, by a
preponderance of the evidence, that subject-matter
jurisdiction exists for his or her claims. See
Lee v. City of Chicago, 330 F.3d 456, 468 (7th Cir.
2003).
Under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a party may move to
dismiss a claim that does not state a right to relief. The
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that a complaint
provide the defendant with “fair notice of what
the…claim is and the grounds upon which it
rests.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93
(2007) (quoting Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 555 (2007)). In reviewing the sufficiency of a
complaint, the Court must accept all well-pled facts as true
and draw all permissible inferences in favor of the
plaintiff. See Active Disposal Inc. v. City of
Darien, 635 F.3d 883, 886 (7th Cir. 2011). A Rule
12(b)(6) motion to dismiss asks whether the complaint
“contain[s] sufficient factual matter, accepted as
true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on
its face.'” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
662, 678 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570).
The Court will not accept legal conclusions or conclusory
allegations as sufficient to state a claim for relief.
See McCauley v. City of Chicago, 671 F.3d
611, 617 (7th Cir. 2011). Factual allegations must plausibly
state an entitlement to relief “to a degree that rises
above the speculative level.” Munson v. Gaetz,
673 F.3d 630, 633 (7th Cir. 2012). This plausibility
determination is “a context-specific task that requires
the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and
common sense.” Id.
II.
Background
The
following are the factual allegations in the Amended
Complaint, which the Court must accept as true at this time:
ITM
owns and operates “a tourist and educational rail
system, including engines [and] passenger cars, ” and
runs “excursions on the rail line [owned] by
[HHPA].” [Filing No. 25 at 1.] Specifically,
ITM operates the Fair Train which runs during the Indiana
State Fair each August, and the Polar Bear Express Train
during the holiday season in late November and December, as
well as other historical, educational, and entertainment
excursions. [Filing No. 25 at 4.] Most of ITM's
excursions take place from March to January and are on the
weekends, although special tours may be scheduled for schools
and other groups. [Filing No. 25 at 5.] [Filing
No. 25 at 4.] ITM is regulated by the Federal Railroad
Administration (“FRA”). [Filing No.
25 at 1-2.]
HHPA is
a governmental entity that owns approximately 37.5 miles of
railroad tracks from 10th Street in downtown Indianapolis to
Tipton, Indiana, and the cities of Fishers and Noblesville
own portions of the tracks as well. [Filing No. 25 at
2-3.] HHPA is responsible for overseeing the
railroad's operations and for issuing licenses to utilize
HHPA-owned tracks. [Filing No. 25 at 2.]
From
1996 to 2006, ITM and HHPA contracted for ITM to use HHPA
tracks to operate excursions from Tipton, Indiana to 38th
Street in Indianapolis. [Filing No. 25 at 3;
Filing No. 25-1.] Under the contract, HHPA was
responsible for maintaining the tracks. [Filing No. 25 at
3.] The parties also entered into a Conditional Policy
of Use on June 25, 2012 (the “2012
CPOU”). [Filing No. 25 at 5.]
In
2016, the FRA conducted an inspection of ITM's
operations, and found that no violations had occurred.
[Filing No. 25 at 4; Filing No. 25-2.] HHPA
requested certain information and data from ITM in June 2016.
[Filing No. 25 at 5.] In August 2016, just days
before the start of the Indiana State Fair, HHPA notified ITM
that it was prohibited from operating its State Fair Train on
HHPA tracks, even though the FRA and the Indiana Department
of Transportation (“IN-DOT”) had
“approved the operation of the equipment, crew and
railroad line.” [Filing No. 25 at 5-6.] ITM
alleges that it complied with all of the original
requirements under a July 2016 Conditional Policy of Use (the
“2016 CPOU”) and supplied all information that
was requested by HHPA except for certain “medical
physical/health requirements for the ITM crew certifications
which are HIPPA protected.” [Filing No. 25 at
6.]
On
October 26, 2016, the President of HHPA, Michael Obergfell,
wrote a letter to ITM outlining various requirements with
which ITM had not complied and stated:
Due to the length of time that has expired since the
HHPA's issuance of [the 2016 CPOU] and today, I would
like for ITM to provide all of the items listed in our [2016
CPOU] at one time, and reference each document to the
corresponding item in the [2016 CPOU]. Once received, HHPA
will review accordingly and let you know where we feel you
are deficient or need additional documentation.
Lastly, it has come to my attention that you have made
numerous written statements to your membership indicating in
some fashion or another that essentially all documentation
required by HHPA has been provided by ITM. While I do
appreciate that ITM has provided some limited information,
the fact is that ITM is not substantially in compliance with
the conditions of the July 11th resolution nor has
the documentation needed been provided. Any statements
otherwise need to be immediately corrected and no further
inaccurate statements should be made if our organizations are
going to work out the current situation.
As I stated earlier, it has now been more than ninety (90)
days since the date of the July HHPA resolution. The HHPA has
taken steps on its own to secure information on the condition
of the line, which should be an ITM function. However, our
contracted inspector has completed the inspection and should
have an inspection report available shortly, that HHPA will
utilize to develop a 5 Year Maintenance Plan that we expect
our Operator to participate in, in lieu of paying trip or use
fees, once reinstated to utilize the facilities. In the event
ITM has not provided the required [2016 CPOU] information to
the HHPA Board to determine if ITM is in substantial
compliance by November 11, 2016, I intend to advise the Board
that compliance at any future date is unlikely and recommend
that the HHPA should consider moving forward with any and all
options to preserve and protect the line, which could include
issuing a Request for Proposals for a new operator on our
owners facilities.
[Filing No. 25-6 at 2.] Subsequently, HHPA issued a
Request for Proposals for a new operator for the railroad
line. [Filing No. 25 at 6.] It also prohibited ITM
from operating its Polar Bear Express Train in November and
December of 2016. [Filing No. 25 at 6.]
ITM
alleges that the majority of its equipment is currently
housed at Forest Park in No-blesville, and that it cannot be
moved because it cannot operate the equipment on HHPA rails.
[Filing No. 25 at 5.] ITM alleges that HHPA refused
to consider ITM's request to operate its trains on its
lines at HHPA board meetings or public meetings, and did not
allow public input on its “plan to ‘rip up the
rails' and put in a trail that is redundant to other
trails currently funded, ” causing “ITM to be
trapped in Noblesville without economical means to move, sell
or restore historic equipment and artifacts.”
[Filing No. 25 at 9.]
ITM
initiated this lawsuit on July 10, 2017, [Filing No.
1], and filed the operative Amended Complaint on August
7, 2017, [Filing No. 25]. ITM does not enumerate
specific claims in the Amended Complaint, but requests a
preliminary injunction allowing it to operate the State ...