theconductor Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> OPRRMS Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > mook Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > That is certainly related to the "main
> question"
> > -
> > > can SMART enforce a contract that says that
> the
> > > way they want to interpret it? But it's not
> > what
> > > the 10/20 action was about - denying a
> > preliminary
> > > injunction because there's a workaround for
> the
> > > immediate issue (the cars that aren't at
> > > Schellville yet) doesn't imply any particular
> > > answer regarding the contract itself. I
> > wouldn't
> > > be a bit surprised if STB eventually does go
> > along
> > > with SMART, but they have to think on it a
> bit
> > > more to work out the precedents that could be
> > > established.
> >
> > Then you and I must he reading completely
> > different rulings.
> >
>
>
> I have to agree with Mook here. This is only a
> denial of the preliminary injunction NCRA/NWP
> filed against SMART to allow them to move the 12
> cars at interchange and the 30 on their way. It is
> not a final ruling on the petition to transport
> and store the cars.
>
>
> This quote from the linked document should help;
>
> Based on the factual information presented in the
> pleadings and clarified on the conference calls,
> Petitioners have not met their burden to show that
> they will be irreparably harmed in the absence of
> a preliminary injunction pending a final Board
> determination in this proceeding.

The ruling does this:

● Denies NWP's petition for injunction.

● Determines that NWP has not been harmed by SMART's action.

● Cites the clause in NWP's contract prohibiting storage of hazardous materials on SMART property.

● Informs the parties that the board will require additional, specific submissions (thought to mean written submissions instead of via conference call) before issuing a final ruling.

● Does not order the parties to seek arbitration as required by the clause in the SMART/NWP contract.

● Does not order the parties to revert to prior practices concerning the movement and/or storage of cars containing hazardous materials, pending a final ruling by the board.

That last point is very interesting, as it leaves the fate of the 42 incoming cars in limbo.

It'll be interesting to see what the final ruling says, and whether the board orders the parties to seek arbitration on this issue, as required by their contract. The board could also state that the parties may bring the issue to the board if arbitration is unsuccessful.

We shall see.