EAST ST. LOUIS - Caseyville sued CSX railroad for causing a flood but missed a deadline for responding to a motion to dismiss the suit.
Chief U.S. District Judge Nancy Rosenstengel issued an order to the village on Oct. 18, giving them two weeks to respond.
Village attorney Doug Stewart filed the suit at St. Clair County circuit court in July, claiming CSX should pay for damage and prevent future floods.
The suit claims that a massive surge of water swept through Caseyville on July 25 and 26, 2022.
A sudden failure of a levee created a gap the size of a bus to unleash a huge wave of water over adjacent farmland which flooded over the rail tracks into neighborhoods.
Flooding occurred on Old Caseyville Road, Susanne Court, Lucinda Court, Acordi Drive, Countryside Drive, West Lincoln Avenue, Black Lane, and 5th, 6th and 7th streets.
According to the suit, Caseyville Nursing and Rehabilitation Center, 3,000 feet from the levee breach, had to evacuate residents and bring them to the community center.
Water became bottled up behind a railroad bridge over Little Canteen Creek because CSX allegedly allowed debris to clog on its property near the bridge.
The suit claims that CSX knew or should have known it would turn the creek into a dangerous makeshift dam because CSX experienced the problem before.
CSX allegedly hadn’t cleaned the debris around the bridge or any portion of the creek on their property in the last 40 years.
CSX counsel Charles Swartwout of Belleville removed the complaint to district court on Sept. 12, asserting diversity jurisdiction as a Florida citizen.
Swartwout moved to dismiss it on Sept. 13, calling it an effort to shift the government’s job of flood control and remediation to someone else.
“The complaint attempts to tell CSX how to design, operate, and inspect its tracks and associated infrastructure,” he wrote.
“Private plaintiffs are not empowered to make those demands nor is the court authorized to grant them.”
He claimed the village asserted that CSX owed duties of unlimited scope, time and place to untold populations of unspecified neighborhoods and residents and people.
He claimed the village asserted no personal injury.
He claimed the village alleged that many people lost homes and possessions.
He claimed those people aren’t parties to this action and the village can’t sue on their behalf.
He claimed the village aimed at subjects squarely and exclusively within the purview of the Surface Transportation Board and the Federal Railroad Administration.
He claimed the village asked the court to manage rail operations by playing general contractor and regulator of the bridge and its adjacent structures.
He claimed the village insisted that CSX redesign the bridge, a directive only the Surface Transportation Board can issue.
He claimed Congress reserved monitoring and inspection of bridges for the board.
He claimed the village asserted no failure of CSX to comply with federal regulations and didn’t refer to a single regulation.
He claimed the village faulted CSX for not communicating with the public before the storm.
“Communicate to whom? When? For how long? Of what?” he wrote.
He claimed that according to the complaint CSX would have to station an employee under every bridge nationwide any time the skies darken.
He claimed the village didn’t even try to explain how a warning would have prevented harm.
A response from the village came due on Oct. 14 but the village didn’t respond.
On Oct. 17, Swartwout moved to dismiss the complaint with prejudice for failure to respond.
A day later Rosenstengel issued an order setting a Nov. 1 deadline for the village to show why she shouldn’t construe its failure to respond as an admission of the merits of CSX’s motion.
She granted the village an alternative to file a response by Nov. 1.