The Supreme Court on Monday denied a petition for a writ of certiorari filed by the Mendocino Railway, ensuring the dismissal of the company’s federal lawsuit challenging local and state regulation of its rail activities in Northern California.
Mendocino Railway CEO Robert Pinoli said he was disappointed the Supreme Court declined review of the federal court’s dismissal of the railway’s federal-preemption claims.
“Now, it will be the California state court’s job to decide the claims,” he noted. “But with the Surface Transportation Board’s recent declaration that Mendocino is, in fact, a common carrier railroad within the Board’s exclusive jurisdiction and entitled to federal preemption, we trust the state court will do the right thing and make clear, once and for all, that the City and Coastal Commission have no regulatory authority over Mendocino’s railroad development and operations.”
Mendocino Railway and the City of Fort Bragg are currently engaged in settlement discussions. A trial is expected in June 2026 if a settlement is not reached.
Fort Bragg City Manager Isaac Whippy said he “respects” the Supreme Court decision. “This ruling provides further clarity on the path forward,” he said. “As we have consistently emphasized, the City remains committed to working in good faith with Mendocino Railway to resolve outstanding issues and to facilitate the responsible redevelopment of the Mill Site in a way that serves the best interests of our community.”
The City of Fort Bragg filed suit against the Mendocino Railway in October 2021 in state court after the train company used the power of eminent domain to acquire around 300 acres of land belonging to the former Georgia Pacific mill site. In its lawsuit, Fort Bragg sought a judicial declaration that Mendocino Railway was subject to state and local regulation, as well as civil penalties and an injunction obligating it to comply with applicable laws.
The California Coastal Commission later intervened in the state lawsuit, seeking a declaration that its permitting authority under the Coastal Act and the City’s Local Coastal Program (“LCP”) is not preempted. The Commission also sought an injunction requiring the railway to cease “all actions taken by the Railway without a coastal development permit” and to obtain authorization before commencing or resuming “any such development.”
The railway challenged the legal basis of the city’s suit and argued it was subject only to regulation by the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act of 1995 (ICCTA).
The trial court ruled against the railway, which sought a review by the California Court of Appeal and the California Supreme Court. The railway also moved to disqualify the judge who ruled against it. That motion was denied. In June 2022, the railway asserted federal preemption as a defense against the city’s complaint in state court.
In August, the railway filed a federal lawsuit seeking declaratory and injunctive relief concerning federal preemption rights under the ICCTA.
Federal preemption is a legal doctrine asserting that when a conflict exists between federal and state laws, federal law takes precedence and overrides the state law.
In October 2022 Mendocino Railway removed the state case to federal district court. Fort Bragg and the commission requested the case be remanded back to state court, and the district court granted that motion on May 11, 2023.
The following day, May 12, 2023, the district court granted a motion to dismiss the railway’s original federal cause using the Colorado River abstention doctrine. This doctrine allows federal courts to relinquish jurisdiction in favor of parallel state-court proceedings only in “exceptional circumstances.”
“Such exceptional circumstances are present here,” the district court wrote in its opinion, noting that the issue of federal preemption under the ICCTA is squarely before the state court.
Indeed, the court pointed out that “federal preemption is the sole issue raised in Mendocino Railway’s complaint in this action, and for the Court to adjudicate that claim would necessarily duplicate the state court’s efforts and risk the possibility of this Court and the state court reaching different results.”
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal, issuing its decision on August 28, 2024, and its order denying rehearing on December 10, 2024.
Both the Pacific Legal Foundation and the Western Manufactured Housing Communities Association supported the railway’s request for review by the U.S. Supreme Court.
The Pacific Legal Foundation said the case dealt with “an exceptionally important question regarding the ability of private citizens to vindicate their federal rights in federal court.” The foundation said it “has seen time and again how governments wield doctrines like Colorado River to shield themselves from federal court scrutiny.”
The mobile home park owners wrote that application of the Colorado River doctrine “has been a story of confusion and unpredictability” and argued that “the court should stop the creep of improper circumlocution of jurisdiction and resolve the manifest confusion about concurrent jurisdiction.”
The denial was issued on Monday without explanation or comment. The California Coastal Commission declined to comment on the denial.
Read more Mendo Local stories about the mill site:
Federal Agency Affirms Mendocino Railway’s Carrier Status
Default Notice Issued as Stormwater Contamination Battle with Fort Bragg Escalates