US Supreme Court rebuffs CSX bid to revive antitrust suit against Norfolk Southern

Lower court found CXS missed the statute of limitations Ships use Norfolk terminal to offload cargo onto trains By Mike Scarcella WASHINGTON, April 21 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court declined on Monday to hear freight rail giant CSX’s bid to revive its antitrust lawsuit accusing rival Norfolk Southern of illegally restricting access to a key East Coast terminal in Virginia, costing CSX hundreds of millions of dollars in lost profits. The justices turned away an appeal by CSX of a lower court’s ruling last year that the Jacksonville, Florida-based company sued too late, missing a four-year window to bring claims for U.S. antitrust law violations. CSX had argued the statute of limitations should not be applied in its lawsuit. CSX sued Norfolk Southern in 2018 in a federal court in Virginia, accusing the rival shipper of conspiring with Norfolk & Portsmouth Belt Line Railroad Co to set an excessive fee for services at Virginia’s Norfolk International Terminals, one of the most important East Coast terminals. Large international container ships use the Norfolk terminal to offload cargo onto trains and trucks for inland destinations. Norfolk & Portsmouth Belt Line, which was also a defendant, is a small railroad that is majority-owned by Norfolk Southern and provides track and “switching” services at the terminal. CSX does not own tracks at the dock, and so it must pay for access. In the suit, it said that Norfolk Southern and Norfolk & Portsmouth Belt Line in 2009 set an artificially high track rate - $210 per rail car - that remains in place today. Norfolk Southern’s advantage has allowed it to charge artificially higher prices to ocean carriers that rely on the Norfolk terminal, according to the CSX lawsuit. CSX said it has been barred from entering into profitable contracts with ocean shippers. CSX said Norfolk Southern’s practice of allegedly overcharging for access to the terminal was continuing each day the fee remains in place, and so the four-year statute of limitations should not have been a bar to filing a lawsuit. The Richmond, Virginia-based 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2024 upheld a judge’s dismissal of CSX’s lawsuit. The 4th Circuit said Norfolk Southern’s rail charges “didn’t inflict new harm causing new injury to CSX within the limitations period.” In its appeal to the Supreme Court, CSX said that the 4th Circuit ruling served to create an immunity shield that lets Norfolk Southern sidestep competition at the Norfolk terminal. In its filing to the Supreme Court, Norfolk Southern said CSX “sat on its hands” for nine years before filing a lawsuit. Norfolk Southern said the 4th Circuit correctly ruled that the 2009 date when the rate was set “was outside the statute of limitations, and that simply maintaining that rate was inaction that did not retrigger the statute of limitations on a daily basis.” FACTBOX-Top cases before the US Supreme Court