Preview
27-CV-23-19498
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
1/3/2024 12:29 PM
STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
Trackworks, L.L.C., Case Type: Civil Other/Miscellaneous
Court File No.: ____________
Plaintiff,
v. DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
Twin Cities & Western Railroad Company,
Defendant.
Defendant Twin Cities & Western Railroad Company (“Defendant”) makes the following
Answer to the Complaint (“Complaint”) of Plaintiff Trackworks, L.L.C. (“Plaintiff”). Capitalized
terms not otherwise defined herein have the definitions of such terms set forth in Plaintiff’s
Complaint. Defendant denies each and every allegation contained in the Complaint, except as
hereinafter specifically admitted, explained, clarified, or otherwise pleaded. Defendant states as
follows:
PARTIES
1. Defendant, upon information and belief, admits the allegations in Paragraph 1.
2. Defendant admits the allegations in Paragraph 2.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
3. Paragraph 3 asserts legal conclusions to which no response is required.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
4. Defendant, upon information and belief, admits the allegations in Paragraph 4.
5. Defendant, upon information and belief, admits the allegations in Paragraph 5.
27-CV-23-19498
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
1/3/2024 12:29 PM
6. With respect to Paragraph 6, Defendant states that the referenced contract speaks
for itself, and no further response is required. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 6 conflict
with the referenced contract, Defendant denies the allegations.
7. With respect to Paragraph 7, Defendant admits only that one of the purposes of
flagging services are to notify construction workers of approaching trains. Further answering
Paragraph 7, Defendant states that flagging services also serve to protect construction workers and
other personnel from train activity and to ensure the safe and timely passage of freight transported
by train.
8. Defendant states that the referenced contract speaks for itself, and no further
response is required. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 8 conflict with the referenced
contract, Defendant denies the allegations.
9. Defendant states that the referenced contract speaks for itself, and no further
response is required. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 9 conflict with the referenced
contract, Defendant denies the allegations.
10. Defendant states that the referenced contract speaks for itself, and no further
response is required. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 10 conflict with the referenced
contract, Defendant denies the allegations.
11. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 11.
12. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 12.
13. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 13.
14. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 14.
15. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 15. Defendant further states that
Paragraph 15 contains legal assertions and conclusions to which no response is required.
2
27-CV-23-19498
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
1/3/2024 12:29 PM
16. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 16 that Defendant or its agents made
any false representations to the U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad
Administration (“FRA”), Met Council, or any other third-party regarding Plaintiff and the alleged
safety incidents. Further answering Paragraph 16, Defendant states that any interaction it had with
the FRA resulted from Plaintiff reporting the alleged safety incidents to the FRA; the FRA
conducted an investigation on the reported incidents in or around May 2019, and concluded that
Defendant was in compliance with all operating rules. Further answering Paragraph 16, Defendant
states that after the conclusion of the FRA investigation, the representative of Plaintiff who had
made the reports to the FRA, Mike Tolan, contacted representatives of Defendant and apologized.
17. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 17.
18. Answering Paragraph 18, Defendant admits only that it requested to remove one
individual affiliated with Plaintiff from flagging services. Further answering Paragraph 18,
Defendant states that it did not make any request to have Plaintiff removed as a subcontractor on
the Project.
19. Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny the
allegations in Paragraph 19 and therefore denies the same.
20. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 20.
21. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 21.
22. With respect to Paragraph 22, Defendant states that the referenced contract speaks
for itself, and no further response is required. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 22 conflict
with the referenced contract, Defendant denies the allegations.
3
27-CV-23-19498
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
1/3/2024 12:29 PM
23. With respect to Paragraph 23, Defendant states that the referenced contract speaks
for itself, and no further response is required. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 23 conflict
with the referenced contract, Defendant denies the allegations.
24. With respect to Paragraph 24, Defendant states that the referenced contract speaks
for itself, and no further response is required. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 24 conflict
with the referenced contract, Defendant denies the allegations.
25. Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny the
allegations in Paragraph 25 and therefore denies the same.
COUNT I
Tortious Interference with Contract
26. Defendant incorporates by reference and realleges the proceeding paragraphs of its
Answer as if set forth fully herein.
27. Defendant states that the referenced contract speaks for itself, and no further
response is required. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 27 conflict with the referenced
contract, Defendant denies the allegations.
28. Paragraph 28 contains legal assertions and conclusions to which no response is
required.
29. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 29.
30. Paragraph 30 contains legal assertions and conclusions to which no response is
required. To the extent a response is required, Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 30.
COUNT II
Tortious Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage
31. Defendant incorporates by reference and realleges the proceeding paragraphs of its
Answer as if set forth fully herein.
4
27-CV-23-19498
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
1/3/2024 12:29 PM
32. Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny the
allegations in Paragraph 32 and therefore denies the same. Defendant further asserts that Paragraph
32 contains legal assertions to which no response is required.
33. Paragraph 33 contains legal assertions and conclusions to which no response is
required.
34. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 34.
35. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 35.
36. Defendant denies the allegation in Paragraph 36 that it engaged in any wrongful
conduct, and further states that it lacks sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny the
remaining allegations in Paragraph 36 and therefore denies the same. Paragraph 36 further asserts
legal assertions to which no response is required.
37. Paragraph 37 contains legal assertions and conclusions to which no response is
required. To the extent a response is required, Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 37.
COUNT III
Unlawful and Deceptive Trade Practices
38. Defendant incorporates by reference and realleges the proceeding paragraphs of its
Answer as if set forth fully herein.
39. Paragraph 39 contains legal conclusions to which no further response is required.
40. Paragraph 40 contains legal assertions and conclusions to which no further response
is required.
41. Defendant denies the allegation in Paragraph 41 that it engaged in any deception or
false pretenses. Further answering Paragraph 41, it contains legal assertions and conclusions to
which no further response is required.
5
27-CV-23-19498
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
1/3/2024 12:29 PM
JURY DEMAND
42. Paragraph 42 contains a legal assertion to which no further response is required.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES AND SEPARATE DEFENSES
As and for its defenses to the Complaint, Defendant states as follows, without waiver of
Plaintiff’s obligation to plead and prove each and every element of its claims:
1. The Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted against
Defendant.
2. Plaintiff has suffered no cognizable damages and/or other recognizable remedies
pursuant to its claims.
3. Plaintiff has not and cannot demonstrate any injury in fact.
4. Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, because the damages sought by
Plaintiff are speculative, remote, and/or impossible to ascertain.
5. Conduct and damages alleged in the Complaint were not caused by any action or
inaction on the part of Defendant.
6. Conduct and damages alleged in the Complaint for which Plaintiff seeks recovery
were caused by the independent, superseding, or intervening acts of persons or parties other than
Defendant or for whom Defendant is not legally responsible.
7. Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, because any alleged damages
incurred by Plaintiff were the result of an unforeseeable series of events over which Defendant had
no control and for which Defendant cannot be held liable.
8. Plaintiff’s damages, which are specifically denied, were caused, in whole or in part,
by Plaintiff’s own negligence, actions, and/or omissions.
9. Plaintiff’s claims are barred in whole or in part by Plaintiff’s failure to mitigate
damages and/or avoid the consequences of Plaintiff’s own conduct.
6
27-CV-23-19498
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
1/3/2024 12:29 PM
10. Defendant specifically invokes any and all applicable caps or other limits on
Plaintiff’s alleged damages.
11. Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrines of waiver, accord
and satisfaction, estoppel, unclean hands, and laches.
12. Defendant reserves the right to assert additional affirmative defenses,
counterclaims, and/or third-party claims that may appear or become available as discovery and
investigation progresses, and hereby reserves the right to amend its Answer to assert any such
defenses or claims.
WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests that the Court:
1. Dismiss the Complaint with prejudice;
2. Award Defendant its costs, disbursements, and attorneys’ fees as may be allowed
by applicable law; and
3. Grant any other relief the Court deems just and equitable.
Dated: April 25, 2023 /s/ Nicole M. Moen
Nicole M. Moen (#0329435)
FREDRIKSON & BYRON, P.A.
200 South Sixth Street, Suite 4000
Minneapolis, MN 55402-1425
Tel: 612-492-7000
Fax: 612-492-7077
nmoen@fredlaw.com
Attorney for Defendant
Twin Cities & Western Railroad Company
7
27-CV-23-19498
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
1/3/2024 12:29 PM
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Defendant acknowledges that sanctions may be imposed under Minn. Stat. § 549.211.
Dated: April 25, 2023 /s/ Nicole M. Moen
Nicole M. Moen (#0329435)
FREDRIKSON & BYRON, P.A.
200 South Sixth Street, Suite 4000
Minneapolis, MN 55402-1425
Tel: 612-492-7000
Fax: 612-492-7077
nmoen@fredlaw.com
Attorney for Defendant
Twin Cities & Western Railroad Company
8
Preview
27-CV-23-19498 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 1/3/2024 12:29 PM STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF HENNEPIN FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT Trackworks, L.L.C., Case Type: Civil Other/Miscellaneous Court File No.: ____________ Plaintiff, v. DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT Twin Cities & Western Railroad Company, Defendant. Defendant Twin Cities & Western Railroad Company (“Defendant”) makes the following Answer to the Complaint (“Complaint”) of Plaintiff Trackworks, L.L.C. (“Plaintiff”). Capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein have the definitions of such terms set forth in Plaintiff’s Complaint. Defendant denies each and every allegation contained in the Complaint, except as hereinafter specifically admitted, explained, clarified, or otherwise pleaded. Defendant states as follows: PARTIES 1. Defendant, upon information and belief, admits the allegations in Paragraph 1. 2. Defendant admits the allegations in Paragraph 2. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 3. Paragraph 3 asserts legal conclusions to which no response is required. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 4. Defendant, upon information and belief, admits the allegations in Paragraph 4. 5. Defendant, upon information and belief, admits the allegations in Paragraph 5. 27-CV-23-19498 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 1/3/2024 12:29 PM 6. With respect to Paragraph 6, Defendant states that the referenced contract speaks for itself, and no further response is required. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 6 conflict with the referenced contract, Defendant denies the allegations. 7. With respect to Paragraph 7, Defendant admits only that one of the purposes of flagging services are to notify construction workers of approaching trains. Further answering Paragraph 7, Defendant states that flagging services also serve to protect construction workers and other personnel from train activity and to ensure the safe and timely passage of freight transported by train. 8. Defendant states that the referenced contract speaks for itself, and no further response is required. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 8 conflict with the referenced contract, Defendant denies the allegations. 9. Defendant states that the referenced contract speaks for itself, and no further response is required. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 9 conflict with the referenced contract, Defendant denies the allegations. 10. Defendant states that the referenced contract speaks for itself, and no further response is required. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 10 conflict with the referenced contract, Defendant denies the allegations. 11. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 11. 12. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 12. 13. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 13. 14. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 14. 15. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 15. Defendant further states that Paragraph 15 contains legal assertions and conclusions to which no response is required. 2 27-CV-23-19498 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 1/3/2024 12:29 PM 16. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 16 that Defendant or its agents made any false representations to the U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration (“FRA”), Met Council, or any other third-party regarding Plaintiff and the alleged safety incidents. Further answering Paragraph 16, Defendant states that any interaction it had with the FRA resulted from Plaintiff reporting the alleged safety incidents to the FRA; the FRA conducted an investigation on the reported incidents in or around May 2019, and concluded that Defendant was in compliance with all operating rules. Further answering Paragraph 16, Defendant states that after the conclusion of the FRA investigation, the representative of Plaintiff who had made the reports to the FRA, Mike Tolan, contacted representatives of Defendant and apologized. 17. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 17. 18. Answering Paragraph 18, Defendant admits only that it requested to remove one individual affiliated with Plaintiff from flagging services. Further answering Paragraph 18, Defendant states that it did not make any request to have Plaintiff removed as a subcontractor on the Project. 19. Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph 19 and therefore denies the same. 20. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 20. 21. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 21. 22. With respect to Paragraph 22, Defendant states that the referenced contract speaks for itself, and no further response is required. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 22 conflict with the referenced contract, Defendant denies the allegations. 3 27-CV-23-19498 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 1/3/2024 12:29 PM 23. With respect to Paragraph 23, Defendant states that the referenced contract speaks for itself, and no further response is required. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 23 conflict with the referenced contract, Defendant denies the allegations. 24. With respect to Paragraph 24, Defendant states that the referenced contract speaks for itself, and no further response is required. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 24 conflict with the referenced contract, Defendant denies the allegations. 25. Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph 25 and therefore denies the same. COUNT I Tortious Interference with Contract 26. Defendant incorporates by reference and realleges the proceeding paragraphs of its Answer as if set forth fully herein. 27. Defendant states that the referenced contract speaks for itself, and no further response is required. To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 27 conflict with the referenced contract, Defendant denies the allegations. 28. Paragraph 28 contains legal assertions and conclusions to which no response is required. 29. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 29. 30. Paragraph 30 contains legal assertions and conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 30. COUNT II Tortious Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage 31. Defendant incorporates by reference and realleges the proceeding paragraphs of its Answer as if set forth fully herein. 4 27-CV-23-19498 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 1/3/2024 12:29 PM 32. Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph 32 and therefore denies the same. Defendant further asserts that Paragraph 32 contains legal assertions to which no response is required. 33. Paragraph 33 contains legal assertions and conclusions to which no response is required. 34. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 34. 35. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 35. 36. Defendant denies the allegation in Paragraph 36 that it engaged in any wrongful conduct, and further states that it lacks sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 36 and therefore denies the same. Paragraph 36 further asserts legal assertions to which no response is required. 37. Paragraph 37 contains legal assertions and conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 37. COUNT III Unlawful and Deceptive Trade Practices 38. Defendant incorporates by reference and realleges the proceeding paragraphs of its Answer as if set forth fully herein. 39. Paragraph 39 contains legal conclusions to which no further response is required. 40. Paragraph 40 contains legal assertions and conclusions to which no further response is required. 41. Defendant denies the allegation in Paragraph 41 that it engaged in any deception or false pretenses. Further answering Paragraph 41, it contains legal assertions and conclusions to which no further response is required. 5 27-CV-23-19498 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 1/3/2024 12:29 PM JURY DEMAND 42. Paragraph 42 contains a legal assertion to which no further response is required. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES AND SEPARATE DEFENSES As and for its defenses to the Complaint, Defendant states as follows, without waiver of Plaintiff’s obligation to plead and prove each and every element of its claims: 1. The Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted against Defendant. 2. Plaintiff has suffered no cognizable damages and/or other recognizable remedies pursuant to its claims. 3. Plaintiff has not and cannot demonstrate any injury in fact. 4. Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, because the damages sought by Plaintiff are speculative, remote, and/or impossible to ascertain. 5. Conduct and damages alleged in the Complaint were not caused by any action or inaction on the part of Defendant. 6. Conduct and damages alleged in the Complaint for which Plaintiff seeks recovery were caused by the independent, superseding, or intervening acts of persons or parties other than Defendant or for whom Defendant is not legally responsible. 7. Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, because any alleged damages incurred by Plaintiff were the result of an unforeseeable series of events over which Defendant had no control and for which Defendant cannot be held liable. 8. Plaintiff’s damages, which are specifically denied, were caused, in whole or in part, by Plaintiff’s own negligence, actions, and/or omissions. 9. Plaintiff’s claims are barred in whole or in part by Plaintiff’s failure to mitigate damages and/or avoid the consequences of Plaintiff’s own conduct. 6 27-CV-23-19498 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 1/3/2024 12:29 PM 10. Defendant specifically invokes any and all applicable caps or other limits on Plaintiff’s alleged damages. 11. Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrines of waiver, accord and satisfaction, estoppel, unclean hands, and laches. 12. Defendant reserves the right to assert additional affirmative defenses, counterclaims, and/or third-party claims that may appear or become available as discovery and investigation progresses, and hereby reserves the right to amend its Answer to assert any such defenses or claims. WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests that the Court: 1. Dismiss the Complaint with prejudice; 2. Award Defendant its costs, disbursements, and attorneys’ fees as may be allowed by applicable law; and 3. Grant any other relief the Court deems just and equitable. Dated: April 25, 2023 /s/ Nicole M. Moen Nicole M. Moen (#0329435) FREDRIKSON & BYRON, P.A. 200 South Sixth Street, Suite 4000 Minneapolis, MN 55402-1425 Tel: 612-492-7000 Fax: 612-492-7077 nmoen@fredlaw.com Attorney for Defendant Twin Cities & Western Railroad Company 7 27-CV-23-19498 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 1/3/2024 12:29 PM ACKNOWLEDGMENT Defendant acknowledges that sanctions may be imposed under Minn. Stat. § 549.211. Dated: April 25, 2023 /s/ Nicole M. Moen Nicole M. Moen (#0329435) FREDRIKSON & BYRON, P.A. 200 South Sixth Street, Suite 4000 Minneapolis, MN 55402-1425 Tel: 612-492-7000 Fax: 612-492-7077 nmoen@fredlaw.com Attorney for Defendant Twin Cities & Western Railroad Company 8