As we have highlighted, three cases scheduled to be argued in November at the Federal Circuit attracted amicus briefs. One of those cases is ATS Ford Drive Investment, LLC v. United States, a case involving a taking claim. In this case, ATS Ford Drive Investment appeals a judgment of the Court of Federal Claims, which granted a motion for summary judgment in favor of the government. This is our argument preview.
In its opening brief, ATS explained how the Court of Federal Claims “granted the government’s motion for summary judgment and denied the landowner’s motion for summary judgment.” According to ATS, the court “concluded that the owners granted the railroad title to the fee simple estate in the strip of land across which the railroad built and operated a railway line.” Furthermore, ATS explained, the court “held the interest granted the railroad was not an easement, and thus, the owners had no interest in the land across which the now-abandoned railway line had been located.”
ATS presented several arguments that the Court of Federal Claims erred. First, it argued, the court “erred by failing to certify an unsettled question of Indiana state law to the Indiana Supreme Court. ” ATS went on to contend that “[p]rinciples of federalism direct that such questions of state law should be determined by the state’s highest court when certification is available and federal courts should not make an ‘Erie-guess’ about state law.” Second, ATS argued, the Court of Federal Claims further erred when it “proceeded to hold that preprinted form language in ‘right-of-way and damage release’ documents signed in the 1840s and 1850s conveyed fee simple title to the strip of land across which the railroad operated a railway line.” According to ATA, “such a holding is contrary to all controlling authority.”
In its response brief, the United States argued that the Federal Circuit “should affirm summary judgment” because the landowners “did not own land in the rail corridor and thus are not entitled to just compensation for alleged takings of interests in those lands.” Responding to ATS’s first argument, the government maintained the court “lacks authority to certify the question to the Indiana Supreme Court” because “the question of whether the Releases conveyed fee simple or easements is squarely governed by clear controlling Indiana precedent.” In particular, the government argued, while “Federal courts can invoke certification to refer novel and unsettled questions of state law to state courts,” federal courts “cannot use the procedure to request that state courts reconsider their own controlling precedents.”
In its reply brief, ATS argued the Federal Circuit “should reverse the CFC’s decision and remand these landowners’ claims for a determination” of the just compensation “each of these Indiana landowners are due, or instead, certify this question to the Indiana Supreme Court.” According to ATS, “the explicit text of the Releases and 150 years of Indiana jurisprudence and public policy all direct the Releases to be interpreted as the grant of an easement, not title to the fee estate in a strip of land.”
Indiana Landowners, Professor James W. Ely, Jr. and Professor Shelly Ross Saxer filed an amicus brief supporting reversal. Regarding the fee versus easement question, the brief argued the Court of Federal Claims “eschewed proper procedure and substituted its own judgment for that of the State of Indiana.”
Oral argument is scheduled to be heard on Wednesday, November 6. We will keep track of this case and report on any developments.