|SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD DECISION DOCUMENT|
|RICHARD BEST TRANSFER, INC. V. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY|
|Director Of Proceedings|
|DECISION ADOPTED A PROCEDURAL SCHEDULE FOR THIS PROCEEDING.|
| 23 KB|
|Approximate download time at 28.8 kb: 21 Seconds|
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|
45607 SERVICE DATE – LATE RELEASE DECEMBER 22, 2016
SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD
Docket No. NOR 42149
RICHARD BEST TRANSFER, INC. v. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY
Decided: December 22, 2016
On November 3, 2016, Richard Best Transfer, Inc. (RBT), a transloading company, filed a complaint and a petition for a preliminary injunction with regard to certain revisions made by Union Pacific Railroad Company (UP) to UP Tariff 4053-C. RBT states that these tariff revisions would increase rates to its Ivory, Cal. transloading facility by $250 per car. RBT alleges in its complaint that these tariff revisions constitute an unreasonable practice in violation of 49 U.S.C. § 10702 and unreasonable discrimination in violation of 49 U.S.C. §§ 10701(b) and 10741. In its petition for preliminary injunction, RBT sought to enjoin UP from implementing the revisions, which were effective November 1, 2016.
On November 8, 2016, the Board issued an order requiring UP to reply to the petition for preliminary injunction on an expedited schedule. On November 16, 2016, UP filed its reply to the petition, and on November 23, 2016, UP filed its answer to the complaint. On December 12, 2016, the parties filed a joint report on their procedural conference and a request to adopt a procedural schedule.
The parties substantially agree on the procedural schedule, but disagree about when the procedural schedule should begin. RBT argues that the procedural schedule should be calculated from the date the Board rules on RBT’s petition for preliminary injunction, while UP argues that the procedural schedule should begin immediately. (Joint Report 2.) The parties also state that they “have agreed to defer the issue of post-evidentiary briefing” at this time. (Id.)
Because the Board, concurrently with this decision, has served a decision denying RBT’s petition for preliminary injunction in this proceeding, the parties’ disagreement as to whether the procedural schedule should begin before or after a decision on the petition is moot. The Board therefore adopts the procedural schedule outlined below, which is consistent with the schedule proposed by the parties. This schedule is also consistent with the Board’s prior practices and procedures. Although the schedule does not require the parties to file final briefs, the Board may order final briefs at a later time if it believes they are necessary based on the development of the evidentiary record.
The following procedural schedule is adopted:
It is ordered:
1. The procedural schedule described above is adopted.
2. This decision is effective on its service date.
By the Board, Rachel D. Campbell, Director, Office of Proceedings.