SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD DECISION DOCUMENT
    Decision Information

Docket Number:  
AB_167_1189_X

Case Title:  
CONSOLIDATED RAIL CORPORATION--ABANDONMENT EXEMPTION--IN HUDSON COUNTY, N.J.

Decision Type:  
Decision

Deciding Body:  
Administrative Law Judge

    Decision Summary

Decision Notes:  
DECISION ORDERED THAT JAMES RIFFIN'S MOTION TO STAY BE STRICKEN FROM THE PROCEEDING IN THE DOCKETS.

    Embraced Cases

Docket Number

AB_55_686_X - Csx Transportation, Inc.--Discontinuance Of Service Exemption--In Hudson County, Nj

AB_290_306_X - Norfolk Southern Railway Company--Discontinuance Of Service Exemption--In Hudson County, Nj


    Decision Attachments

161 KB


Approximate download time at 28.8 kb: 87 Seconds

Note:
If you do not have Acrobat Reader, or if you have problems reading our files with your current version of Acrobat Reader, the latest version of Acrobat Reader is available free at www.adobe.com.

    Full Text of Decision

45539                    SERVICE DATE – LATE RELEASE OCTOBER 26, 2016

ALJ

 

SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD

 

ORDER OF PRESIDING ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE ON JAMES RIFFIN’S MOTION TO STAY

 

Docket No. AB 167 (Sub-No. 1189X)

 

CONSOLIDATED RAIL CORPORATION—ABANDONMENT EXEMPTION—IN HUDSON COUNTY, NJ

 

Docket No. AB 55 (Sub-No. 686X)

 

CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC.—DISCONTINUANCE OF SERVICE EXEMPTION—IN HUDSON COUNTY, NJ

 

Docket No. AB 290 (Sub-No. 306X)

 

NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY—DISCONTINUANCE OF SERVICE EXEMPTION—IN HUDSON COUNTY, NJ

 

Decided:  October 26, 2016

 

On October 25, 2016, James Riffin filed a Motion to Stay, which seeks to stay the issuance of an order memorializing the bench ruling made at the October 24, 2016 oral arguments.  Later on the same day, the City of Jersey City, Rails to Trails Conservancy, and Pennsylvania Railroad Harsimus Stem Embankment Preservation Coalition (collectively, City et al.) submitted a reply in opposition to Mr. Riffin’s Motion to Stay. 

 

I am adopting arguments contained in City et al.’s reply in opposition to Mr. Riffin’s Motion to Stay as the rationale for striking Mr. Riffin’s Motion to Stay as ordered, below.

 

The Board follows standard federal practice in addressing motions to stay.[1]  The standard treatment requires the party seeking a stay to show:  (1) a likelihood that it will prevail on the merits of any challenge to the action sought to be stayed; (2) that it will suffer irreparable harm in the absence of a stay; (3) other interested parties will not be substantially harmed by a stay; and (4) that the public interest supports the granting of the stay.[2]

Mr. Riffin does not purport to make any of these showings.  Mr. Riffin predicates his motion for a stay on his desire for delay while he attempts to assemble more evidence which, even if assembled, does not address the multiple grounds I articulated to dismiss Mr. Riffin from the proceedings in the above-referenced dockets.

 

With City et al.’s Second Motion to Compel Discovery Against Mr. Riffin being filed on July 5, 2016, and the subsequent issuance of the order requiring Mr. Riffin to respond fully to City et al.’s discovery request being issued on August, 25 2016, Mr. Riffin had ample time to comply in good faith with City et al.’s discovery request.  This last-ditch effort, purporting to comply with the discovery request in order remain in these proceedings, is unacceptable.

 

Additionally, Mr. Riffin’s Motion to Stay violates the bench ruling made at the October 24, 2016 oral arguments, which explicitly prohibited Mr. Riffin from submitting any further pleading into evidence.

 

The bench ruling remains unaffected.  Accordingly, Mr. Riffin is reminded that his remaining alternative to continue in these proceedings is to seek reconsideration from the Board as noted by City et al. 

 

It is ordered:

 

1.  Mr. Riffin’s Motion to Stay is hereby stricken from the proceedings in the above-referenced dockets.

 

2.  This decision is effective on its service date.

 

By the Board, John P. Dring, Administrative Law Judge.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



[1]  Wash. Metro. Area Transit Comm’n v. Holiday Tours, Inc., 559 F.2d 841, 843 (D.C. Cir. 1977).

[2]  Eighteen Thirty Group, LLC—Acquis. Exemption—In Allegany Cty., Md., FD 35438 et al., slip op. at 2 (STB served Nov. 17, 2010).