EAST ST. LOUIS - Caseyville claims CSX railroad can’t plead that the village’s lawsuit over a flood interferes with railroad operations when it hasn’t used the track since the flood.
Village counsel Doug Stewart of Fairview Heights opposed CSX’s motion to dismiss the suit on Nov. 1 and wrote, “The tracks are knowingly inoperable.”
According to Stewart, Chief U.S. District Judge Nancy Rosenstengel could order CSX to raise the track.
Stewart claims CSX failed to inform her that the relief Caseyville seeks would benefit CSX.
He filed the suit at St. Clair County circuit court in July, claiming CSX should pay for damage and prevent future floods.
He claims a surge of water swept through Caseyville on July 25 and 26, 2022.
He claims failure of a levee unleashed a wave that flooded into neighborhoods.
Caseyville Nursing and Rehabilitation Center, 3,000 feet from the levee breach, evacuated residents and brought them to the community center.
A CSX bridge over Little Canteen Creek is alleged to have bottled water up because CSX allowed debris to clog near the bridge.
CSX counsel Charles Swartwout of Belleville removed the complaint to district court in September, asserting diversity jurisdiction as a Florida citizen.
He moved to dismiss it, claiming it aimed at subjects exclusively within the purview of the federal surface transportation board and the federal railroad administration.
He claimed the village asserted no failure to comply with federal regulations.
He claimed the village asked the court to play general contractor and regulator of the bridge and adjacent structures.
He claimed only the surface transportation board can issue a directive to redesign a bridge.
He claimed the village alleged that many people lost homes and possessions but those people aren’t parties to the action and the village can’t sue on their behalf.
He claimed local governments in Illinois can’t recover costs of emergency responses.
Stewart agreed in his response that local governments in Illinois can’t recover rescue costs of police and fire personnel but he claimed CSX disregarded other expenses.
He claimed the village repaired and replaced personal and village property, repaired a levee and provided services not normally provided to residents and the general public.
He claimed federal laws don’t bar damages for abatement costs or compensation for harm to municipal property.
“The village’s claims and desired remedies are rooted in state law related to drainage or waterways and easements arising thereto," he wrote.
He claimed determining whether damages fit within well defined categories would require a fact inquiry by the court.
He claimed CSX appeared to wish for a collective action.
“To the extent that this court agrees that a collective action best remedies the situation, the village requests adequate time to notify residents and property owners of their right to join this action," he wrote.
He claimed the state vested authority in the village to compel companies to raise or lower their tracks to conform with any grade.
He claimed the village may compel CSX to make and repair ditches, drains, sewers, and culverts so natural drainage of adjacent property is not impeded.