Grafton-Upton Railroad Lawsuit Bumped to State Court

Editor's note: This article was updated at 2 p.m. with the town's full statement attached as a PDF.

A federal judge's ruling on Friday means that the town and the Grafton and Upton Railroad must continue their lawsuit in a state court.

The town and the railroad have been looking for a resolution to this case since December 2012, when Grafton issued a cease and desist order in relation to the company's development of a propane storage facility on Westborough Road.

The railroad has argued it is exempt from local land use regulations. Town Administrator Timothy McInerney has said the town believes the proposed facility is not congruent to rail operations, and therefore, would not be exempt.

A press release from the town of Grafton outlines the issues that in December 2012 led to the town issuing the cease and desist order.

Arguments for the case had closed in February and both sides had been waiting for a resolution since then. U.S. District Court Judge Timothy S. Hillman's ruling Friday means the case will no longer be a federal court matter; and rather, arguments will be heard in Worcester Superior Court.

In his decision, Hillman granted the town's motion to dismiss the case in federal court for "lack of removal jurisdiction."

"The town is gratified that the court has agreed with its postion that this case should have been referred to the STB by the state court judge,” Town Administrator Timothy McInerney said in a press release. “Unfortunately, due to the railroad’s continual demand that the case was properly removed, the town had to undertake an expedited federal trial before it was remanded to the Superior Court. The town will further review the decision in the coming days to determine what its next step will be.”

Doug Pizzi, spokesman for the railroad, said that while the railroad is disappointed the court's ruling postpones a resolution to the case, "the decision supports the railroad’s position that it will ultimately prevail because it has satisfied the requirements for federal preemption of the town’s zoning bylaw."

"Not only did the Court find that the Railroad did in fact inform the town and the state fire marshal of its potential plans for a propane transloading facility more than a year before the town claimed it knew of those plans, but the court also noted that 'during trial and through extensive briefs . . . the G&U satisfied the five-step ordinary preemption analysis' as set forth in the most recent federal court decision on this issue," Pizzi continued.

Pizzi noted that the court's ruling will require both the town and the railroad to "re-litigate these issues at substantial expense to both parties."

"While the Railroad will consider all of its legal options, it remains committed to conducting all operations at the highest level of safety and to providing jobs and increased economic activity to the entire rail corridor,” Pizzi said.

The full ruling and the town's full statement are attached as PDFs to this article.