# Castillo v. United States > United States Court of Federal Claims · March 1, 2023 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9376219 ## Case - **Court:** United States Court of Federal Claims - **Decided:** March 1, 2023 - **Precedential status:** Published - **Opinion:** Opinion - **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9376219 ## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction) - stating that the “‘classic taking’” is one in which the government directly appropriates private property for its own use (quoting Tahoe-Sierra Pres. Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Reg’l Planning Agency, 535 U.S. 302, 324 (2002)), cert. denied, 579 U.S. 902 (2016 - explaining that “under Florida law, the centerline presumption applies to the railroad right-of-way” at issue in the above captioned cases ## Opinion text In the United States Court of Federal Claims Nos. 16-1624L; 17-1931L; 17-468L; 17-4680L Filed: March 1, 2023 * * * * * * * * * ** * * ** * REINALDO CASTILLO, et al., * * Plaintiffs, * v. * * UNITED STATES, * * Defendant. * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * NELSON MENENDEZ, et al., * * Plaintiffs, * v. * * UNITED STATES, * * Defendant. * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * MIRIAM HERNANDEZ, * * Plaintiff, * v. * * UNITED STATES, * * Defendant. * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * CLARO LIMA, * * Plaintiff, * v. * * UNITED STATES, * * Defendant. * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * Meghan S. Largent, Lewis Rice, LLC, St. Louis, MO, James H. Hulme, Arent Fox, LLP, Washington, D.C., Mark F. Hearne, II, True North Law LLC, St. Louis, MO, for plaintiffs as counsel of record. With them were Lindsay S.C. Brinton, Lewis Rice, LLC, St. Louis, MO, Laurel LaMontagne, Arent Fox, LLP, Washington, D.C., and Stephen S. Davis, True North Law, LLC, St. Louis, MO. Davene D. Walker, Trial Attorney, Natural Resources Section, Environment and Natural Resources Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for defendant. With her was Todd Kim, Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, Washington, D.C. OPINION HORN, J. The Opinion which follows addresses the limited remand of this court’s decision in the cases of Reinaldo Castillo, et al., v. United States, Case No. 16-1624L (Castillo), and Nelson Menendez, et al., v. United States, Case No. 17-1931L (Menendez), see Castillo v. United States, 138 Fed. Cl. 707 (2018), rev’d, 952 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2020), and this court’s decision on motions to reconsider this court’s Opinion in both cases. See Castillo v. United States, 140 Fed. Cl. 590 (2018), rev’d, 952 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2020). The nineteen plaintiffs in Castillo,1 three plaintiffs in Menendez,2 one plaintiff in Miriam 1 The plaintiffs in Castillo are as follows, in the form provided by the parties, in order of claim number: Gonzalo Padron Marino and Julia Garcia; and Mayda Rotella, parcel number 01-4002-002-0220; Shops on Flagler, Inc., parcel number 01-4002-002-1780; Jose F. and Dora A. Dumenigo, parcel number 01-4002-002-1730; Humberto J. and Josefa Marcia Diaz, parcel number 01-4002-002-1720; Luis Crespo, parcel number 01- 4002-002-1650; Jose Luis and Grace Barsello Napole, parcel number 01-4002-002-1640; Bernardo D. and Norma A. Manduley, parcel number 01-4002-002-1630; Danilo A. and Dora Rodriguez, parcel number 01-4002-002-1610; Avimael and Odalys Arevalo, parcel number 01-4002-002-1600; Dalia Espinosa, Daniel Espinosa and Sofira Gonzalez, parcel number 01-4002-002-1580; Lourdez Rodriguez, parcel number 01-4002-001-1370; Alberto Perez, parcel number 01-4002-001-1380; Mayra Lopez, parcel number 01-4002- 001-1390; Niraldo Hernandez Padron and Mercedes Alina Falero, parcel number 01- 4002-001-1400; Luisa Palencia and Xiomara Rodriguez, parcel number 01-4002-001- 1410; Reinaldo F. Castillo, parcel number 01-4002-001-1430; Hugo E. and Concepcion V. Diaz as Co-Trustees of the Diaz Family Revocable Trust, parcel number 01-4002-001- 1440; South American Tile, LLC, parcel number 01-4002-001-1450; and Gladys Hernandez, parcel number 01-4002-001-1460. 2The plaintiffs in Menendez are as follows, in order of claim number: Norma D. Gomez and Jose M. Martinez, parcel number 01-4002-002-1710; Nelson Menendez and Osvaldo Borras, Jr., parcel number 01-4002-002-1690; and Luis R. Schmidt, parcel number 01- 4002-002 -1660. 2 Hernandez v. United States,3 Case No. 17-468L (Hernandez), and one plaintiff in Claro Lima v. United States,4 Case No. 17-4680L (Lima), in the four above captioned cases before this court, are each owners of properties in one of two subdivisions in Miami-Dade County, Florida, the Princess Park Manor and Zena Gardens subdivisions. In a table submitted to the court attached to the parties’ “Amended Joint Stipulations Regarding Title” after the remand, discussed below, each plaintiff in Castillo, Menendez, Hernandez, and Lima stipulated to ownership of a parcel of land “[a]djacent” to the Southern Little River Branch Railroad Line (railroad corridor).5 All four sets6 of plaintiffs allege that as “[a]djacent” landowners to the railroad corridor, they own the land that runs to the centerline of the railroad corridor. The plaintiffs further allege that when the United States government, pursuant to the National Trails System Act, 16 U.S.C. § 1241 et seq. (2018) (the Trails Act), authorized use of the railroad corridor as a public recreational trail, the government destroyed plaintiffs’ reversionary rights to exclusive use and possession of the land underlying the railroad corridor, and thereby effected a taking of plaintiffs’ property without just compensation. According to the Castillo, Menendez, Hernandez, and Lima plaintiffs, they are, therefore, entitled to receive just compensation under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution for the government’s taking of their private property. FINDINGS OF FACT In 2018, the court issued an Opinion in Castillo and Menendez granting partial summary judgment in favor of the United States and finding that the Castillo and 3 The plaintiff in Hernandez is Miriam Hernandez, parcel number 01-4002-002-1740. 4 The plaintiff in Lima is Claro Lima, parcel number 01-4002-002-1590. 5 A fifth case, also on the same rail line, Eduardo Alvarez, et al., v. United States, Case No. 21-610L (Alvarez), was filed more recently than the others, and in a May 11, 2022 joint submission, the Alvarez parties agreed the legal and factual issues were substantially similar to the Castillo, Menendez, Hernandez, and Lima cases and agreed to not take further action at this time, pending a decision in the Castillo, Menendez, Hernandez, and Lima cases. The plaintiff in Alvarez is Eduardo and Marilyn Alvarez, parcel number 01-4002-002-0260. 6 The plaintiffs in the above captioned cases are organized according to parcel ownership in the two subdivisions in which the plaintiffs own property. As a result, one “plaintiff” may consist of multiple persons, as well as trusts, companies, or other entities, who together own one parcel of land and, thus, have one claim against the United States. The organization of plaintiffs in this opinion is consistent with the parties’ representations of the plaintiffs’ organization, including the table provided in the parties’ “Amended Joint Stipulations of Title,” discussed further below, as well as this court’s prior Opinion issued June 29, 2018, in Castillo v. United States, 738 Fed. Cl. 707 (2018). While all plaintiffs from the June 29, 2018 Opinion remain before the court, due to differences between the parties’ prior joint stipulations and the most recent “Amended Joint Stipulations of Title,” some plaintiffs’ names in this Opinion differ somewhat from the June 29, 2018 Opinion. 3 Menendez plaintiffs had no property interests in the land underlying the railroad corridor. See Castillo v. United States, 138 Fed. Cl. at 742. As relevant to the above captioned cases, from the record before the court at the time of the briefing of the prior cross-motions for partial summary judgment, defendant relied on the subdivision plats of the Zena Gardens and Princess Park Manor subdivisions in support of its cross-motions for partial summary judgment before the remand. After the issuance of the court’s June 29, 2018 decision, the Castillo and Menendez plaintiffs filed motions for reconsideration trying to rely on additional evidence including, in relevant part, chains of title for the properties owned by the plaintiffs Reinaldo F. Castillo and Nelson Menendez,7 which had not been previously submitted to the court prior to the decision on the earlier cross-motions for partial summary judgment, for which reason the motions for reconsideration were denied. See Castillo v. United States, 140 Fed. Cl. at 598, 606.8 Defendant opposed the motions for reconsideration and tried to rely on a “tax deed,” dated 1937, which defendant similarly produced for the first time during the briefing of the motions for reconsideration. This 1937 deed was not addressed in this court’s Opinion denying the motions for reconsideration. After the motions for reconsideration were denied, the plaintiffs in Castillo and Menendez filed an appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. See Castillo 7 According to the Menendez chain of title and to the table submitted by the parties showing all plaintiffs with claims currently before the court, the property owned by Nelson Menendez is also owned by Osvaldo Borras, Jr. The Menendez chain of title includes mentions of the surname “Borras” as well as “de Borras,” although plaintiffs refer to the individual as Osvaldo Borras, Jr. For clarity, the court refers to the chain of title for the property owned by Nelson Menendez and Osvaldo Borras, Jr., as the Menendez chain of title. 8 As the court explained in its October 30, 2018 Opinion denying the Castillo and Menendez plaintiffs’ motions for reconsideration, after the motions for reconsideration were filed, plaintiffs in Castillo and Menendez submitted the chains of title of Mr. Castillo and Mr. Menendez as attachments to “notices of additional authority in support of their motions for reconsideration.” See Castillo v. United States, 140 Fed. Cl. at 598. Moreover, the court further noted in the Opinion denying the motions for reconsideration that “[t]he plaintiffs, without explanation, did not attach to the notices of additional authority the chains of title for the parcels of land currently owned by the remaining eighteen Castillo plaintiffs and remaining two Menendez plaintiffs in the above-captioned cases.” Id. (alteration added). In addition to the chains of title of Mr. Castillo and Mr. Menendez, plaintiffs tried to support their motions for reconsideration with two declarations, one of which was from a law professor at the University of Missouri, and the other of which was from a Florida attorney, as well as “a copy of three sections of the 2012 Florida Uniform Title Standards,” and copies of the Zena Gardens and Princess Park Manor subdivision plats. See id. The declarations and Florida Uniform Title Standards produced by plaintiffs in support of their prior motions for reconsideration are not relied on by any party with respect to the cross-motions for partial summary judgment currently before the court on remand. With the exception of the subdivision plats, the evidence produced by plaintiffs in support of their motions for reconsideration had not been previously submitted to this court. See id. 4 v. United States, 952 F.3d 1311, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2020). The Federal Circuit reversed and issued a limited remand of the decisions in Castillo and Menendez to this court on the issue of the application of the centerline presumption under Florida law, and directed “any appropriate further development of the factual record.” Id. at 1325.9 The Castillo and Menendez cases are now before this court on the limited remand, as well as the Hernandez and Lima cases which were joined for the purposes of resolving plaintiffs’ claims with respect to the railroad corridor during the remand. Following the remand, the parties engaged in additional discovery, along with multiple rounds of supplemental briefing, and although plaintiffs produced no additional evidence to support their claims during the post-remand period, defendant on remand produced a 1938 quitclaim deed and a 1938 affidavit, both of which defendant argues clarify the 1937 deed defendant previously produced in opposition to the prior motions for reconsideration.10 In their briefs with respect to the cross-motions for partial summary judgment currently before this court on remand and in multiple rounds of supplemental briefing, plaintiffs and defendant made arguments regarding Florida law in effect at the time of the conveyances referred to in the 9 The Federal Circuit issued a precedential decision on appeal in the Castillo and Menendez cases on February 20, 2020, see Castillo v. United States, 950 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2020), but upon defendant’s petition for panel rehearing, the Federal Circuit issued a modified precedential decision, Castillo v. United States, 952 F.3d 1311, and the Federal Circuit also issued an order on the petition for panel rehearing, explaining that “[t]he only changes from the previously issued opinion are a revision of the sentence now on page 4, lines 22–29, and deletion of a phrase on page 7, line 22.” Castillo v. United States, 796 F. App’x 746, 747 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (alteration added). The revised sentence noted by the Federal Circuit reads in the modified decision: If the railroad and trail operator reach a trail agreement during a negotiation period provided by the STB’s issuance of a Notice of Interim Trail Use or Abandonment (NITU), and so notify the STB, trail use of the right-of-way is authorized and termination of the railroad easement through abandonment is blocked indefinitely. Castillo v. United States, 952 F.3d at 1315. The modified decision also deleted the phrase “that would allow it to operate a trail on the corridor,” Castillo v. United States, No. 2019- 1158, slip op. at 7 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 20, 2020), from the sentence which in the modified decision reads: “On November 1, 2016, Florida East Coast Industries (FEC Industries) requested issuance of an NITU.” Castillo v. United States, 952 F.3d at 1316. According to the Editor’s Note currently available at the citation of the original Federal Circuit decision in Castillo, the Federal Circuit’s original decision “was withdrawn from bound volume because it was superseded on rehearing,” Castillo v. United States, 950 F.3d 1362, and is no longer available on legal databases. 10 Consistent with the limited remand directed by the Federal Circuit, plaintiffs’ arguments in their cross-motions for partial summary judgment on remand are limited to contending that the evidence now in the record before the court upon which defendant relies does not rebut the centerline presumption under Florida law. 5 1937 deed, 1938 quitclaim deed, and 1938 affidavit, discussed further below. The relevant findings of facts from this court’s decision before the appeal, the June 29, 2018 Opinion on the parties’ cross-motions for partial summary judgment in Castillo and Menendez, in relevant part, are incorporated into this Opinion and the facts established during discovery as part of the remand proceedings are described below. Until its abandonment in 2016, the Florida East Coast Railway operated the section of the railroad corridor at issue, which spans 100 feet in width and runs approximately 1.21 miles on the railroad corridor between milepost LR (Left/Right) 11+3989 and milepost LR 13+0000 in Miami-Dade County, Florida. The land upon which the railroad corridor at issue was built was obtained by the Florida East Coast Railway through multiple conveyances in the 1920s. In particular, the section of the railroad corridor at issue in the above captioned cases is comprised of four unequally sized and separate rights-of-way as well as a strip of land resulting from a written deed (the Holman deed), that, when combined, span 100 feet wide and comprise part of the 1.21 mile long railroad corridor. In 1932, the Florida East Coast Railway constructed a railroad line on this 1.21 mile strip of land. According to the map depicting an aerial view of the railroad corridor attached to plaintiffs’ filings in the Castillo and Menendez cases, to which defendant did not take issue, the four separate rights-of-way obtained by condemnation and the one property interest obtained by the Holman deed are not all adjacent to the parcels now owned by plaintiffs in the above captioned cases.11 According to the aerial map previously submitted to the court, three of the four rights-of-way, the Russo right-of-way,12 the Johnson right-of-way,13 and 11 With respect to the Holman property interest, this court in its June 29, 2018 Opinion determined that the Florida East Coast Railway obtained fee simple title to the land covered by a 1923 deed from G.F. and Mary Holman, see Castillo v. United States, 138 Fed. Cl. at 711-12, and the Castillo and Menendez plaintiffs did not appeal that part of the holding to the Federal Circuit. See Castillo v. United States, 952 F.3d at 1317 n.2. This court’s previous holding with respect to the Holman deed, therefore, is not at issue in this Opinion on remand. 12 The Florida East Coast Railway obtained the Russo right-of-way in a condemnation proceeding in the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida, in Dade County, Florida (Dade County Circuit Court) on October 28, 1924 against “Paul Russo and Southern Bank & Trust Company” that resulted in a final judgment appropriating land to be used “as a right of way for the construction, location, and maintenance of the extension of its line of railroad from Okeechobee, Florida to Miami, Florida” by Florida East Coast Railway. 13The Florida East Coast Railway obtained the Johnson right-of-way in a condemnation proceeding in the Dade County Circuit Court on November 21, 1924 against William H. Johnson, Seminole Fruit & Land Company, Clark G. Smith, Ethel C. Rewis, and Donald Rewis, that resulted in a final judgment appropriating land to be used “as a right of way 6 the J. Pyles and J. Owens right-of-way,14 when combined, form the eastern edge of the railroad corridor that runs adjacent to all twenty-four parcels belonging to the plaintiffs in the above captioned cases. The Stanley right-of-way,15 and the Holman property interest obtained by a deed,16 when combined, form the western side of the railroad corridor, and, therefore, are separated from the Castillo, Menendez, Hernandez, and Lima plaintiffs’ parcels by one of the other three rights-of-way at issue, as depicted on the Castillo and Menendez plaintiffs’ aerial map. The Four Separate and Distinct Rights-of-Way by Condemnation As noted above, the Russo right-of-way forms part of the eastern portion of the railroad corridor at issue in the case currently before the court. The Russo right-of-way measures a total of .41 acres, and is 25.33 feet wide along its northern border and 1.2 feet wide along its southern border, running north to south. To the east of, and adjacent for the construction, location, and maintenance of the extension of its line of railroad from Okeechobee, Florida to Miami, Florida” by Florida East Coast Railway. 14 The Florida East Coast Railway obtained the J. Pyles and J. Owens right-of-way in a condemnation proceeding in the Dade County Circuit Court on November 21, 1924 against the Seminole Fruit & Land Company, that resulted in a final judgment appropriating land to be used “as a right of way for the construction, location, and maintenance of the extension of its line of railroad from Okeechobee, Florida to Miami, Florida” by Florida East Coast Railway. The Castillo and Menendez plaintiffs refer to this final judgment as the “J. Pyles, J. Owens Judgment” in their “Joint Stipulations Regarding Title,” while the Hernandez and Lima plaintiffs refer to this judgment as the “Seminole Fruit & Land Condemnation,” or the “Seminole Fruit & Land Company condemnation,” respectively, in their cross-motions for partial summary judgment. The court refers to the right-of-way as the J. Pyles and J. Owens right-of-way in this Opinion. 15 The Florida East Coast Railway obtained the Stanley right-of-way in a condemnation proceeding in the Dade County Circuit Court on October 28, 1924 against R.S. Stanley that resulted in a final judgment in favor of the Florida East Coast Railway, which stated that the land obtained by the Florida East Coast Railway was to be used “as a right of way for the construction, location, and maintenance of the extension of its line of railroad from Okeechobee, Florida to Miami, Florida,” measuring a total of 1.9 acres, and is 1320 feet long running north to south, 50.54 feet wide at its northern border, and 74.67 feet wide at its southern border. The Stanley right-of-way is not adjacent to any of the parcels belonging to the Castillo, Menendez, Hernandez, or Lima plaintiffs. 16 While the land conveyed by the Holman deed constitutes a large portion of the railroad corridor to the west of the properties located in the Zena Gardens subdivision, according to the aerial map which the Castillo and Menendez plaintiffs included with their previous filings, the Holman deed land does not overlap with any of the four rights-of-way. Moreover, for all plaintiffs for whom the Holman deed is a relevant conveyance, at least a portion of the railroad corridor adjacent to the plaintiffs’ properties is part of the Russo right-of-way. 7 to, the Russo right-of-way are the respective parcels of land owned by the following nine Castillo plaintiffs, as depicted on the Castillo plaintiffs’ aerial map17 of the railroad corridor: • Lourdez Rodriguez • Alberto Perez • Mayra Lopez • Niraldo Hernandez Padron and Mercedes Alina Falero • Luisa Palencia and Xiomara Rodriguez • Reinaldo F. Castillo • Hugo E. and Concepcion V. Diaz as Co–Trustees of the Diaz Family Revocable Trust • South American Tile, LLC • Gladys Hernandez The Johnson right-of-way forms part of the eastern portion of the railroad corridor at issue in the case currently before the court. The Johnson right-of-way measures approximately .48 acres, and is 37.39 feet wide at its northern border and 25.33 feet wide at its southern border, running north to south. The Johnson right-of-way is adjacent to the properties of the following six Castillo plaintiffs, as depicted on plaintiffs’ aerial map of the railroad corridor previously submitted to the court before the remand: • Luis Crespo • Jose Luis and Grace Barsello Napole • Bernardo D. and Norma A. Manduley • Danilo A. and Dora Rodriguez • Avimael and Odalys Arevalo • Dalia Espinosa, Daniel Espinosa and Sofira Gonzalez According to the “Amended Joint Stipulations of Title” submitted after the remand and as depicted on plaintiffs’ aerial map of the railroad corridor submitted before the remand, the Johnson right-of-way is also adjacent to the properties of Menendez plaintiff Luis R. Schmidt and Lima plaintiff Claro Lima. Moreover, the Johnson right-of-way lies between the plaintiffs’ properties to which it is adjacent and the southern portion of the Stanley right-of-way on the western edge of the railroad corridor. The J. Pyles and J. Owens right-of-way forms part of the eastern portion of the railroad corridor at issue in the case currently before the court. The J. Pyles and J. Owens right-of-way is divided into two portions, a southern portion and a northern portion. According to the aerial map previously submitted by the Castillo and Menendez plaintiffs, the southern portion of the J. Pyles and J. Owens right-of-way shares the railroad corridor with the Stanley right-of-way. As depicted on plaintiffs’ aerial map previously submitted before the remand in Castillo and Menendez, and on the valuation map submitted with the cross-motions for partial summary judgment currently before the court after the 17The Castillo plaintiffs’ properties which are adjacent to the Russo right-of-way, are not identified on the aerial map submitted by the Menendez plaintiffs before the remand. 8 remand, the Stanley right-of-way covers the western portion of the railroad corridor, and the southern portion of J. Pyles and J. Owens right-of-way covers the eastern portion of the railroad corridor and is adjacent to the following plaintiffs’ parcels: Castillo plaintiffs: • Humberto J. and Josefa Marcia Diaz • Jose F. and Dora A. Dumenigo Menendez plaintiffs: • Norma D. Gomez and Jose M. Martinez • Nelson Menendez and Osvaldo Borras, Jr. According to the parties’ “Joint Stipulations Regarding Title” filed in this court in Hernandez and the valuation map attached to the motions for partial summary judgment currently before the court after the remand, the southern portion of the J. Pyles and J. Owens right-of-way is also adjacent to the property of Hernandez plaintiff Miriam Hernandez.18 Moreover, the southern portion of the J. Pyles and J. Owens right-of-way lies between the plaintiffs’ properties to which it is adjacent and the northern portion of the Stanley right-of-way on the western edge of the railroad corridor. According to the aerial map previously provided to the court by the Castillo plaintiffs before the remand,19 and on the valuation map attached to the cross-motions for partial summary judgment currently before the court after the remand, the northern portion of the J. Pyles and J. Owens right-of-way is adjacent to the parcels for the following two Castillo plaintiffs: Shops on Flagler Inc., and Gonzalo Padron Marino, Julia Garcia and Mayda Rotella. Notably, as depicted on the plaintiffs’ aerial map previously submitted in Castillo before the remand, the northern portion of the J. Pyles and J. Owens right-of-way is the only portion of the railroad corridor at issue in which only one right-of-way covers the full width of the railroad corridor, which is 100 feet. The Plats of the Subdivisions and Plaintiffs’ Deeds The land to the east of the right-of-way eventually became the properties of two families, the Merwitzers and the Mosses, who would plat their lands as the Zena Gardens 18 While the claims in Alvarez are not considered in the current Opinion, according to the “Amended Joint Stipulations Regarding Title” and the valuation map attached to the cross-motions for partial summary judgment currently before the court, the J. Pyles and J. Owens right-of-way is also adjacent to the property of the Alvarez plaintiff Eduardo and Marilyn Alvarez. 19 Similar to the Russo right-of-way, the Castillo plaintiffs whose properties are adjacent to the northern portion of the J. Pyles and J. Owens right-of-way are not identified on the aerial map submitted by the Menendez plaintiffs before the remand. 9 and Princess Park Manor subdivisions, respectively. On September 30, 1947, Louis and Rebecca Merwitzer platted a parcel of their land and called it the “Zena Gardens” subdivision. According to the subdivision plat for Zena Gardens, which was attached to the government’s previous cross-motions for partial summary judgment in Castillo and Menendez before the remand and to which the plaintiffs do not take issue, the western border of Zena Gardens is adjacent to the railroad corridor, which measures 100 feet wide and is labeled “Florida East Coast Railway.” According to the respective deeds submitted by the Castillo plaintiffs as attachments to their amended complaint,20 the respective parcels of land owned by the following nine Castillo plaintiffs are located in the Zena Gardens subdivision: • Lourdez Rodriguez • Alberto Perez • Mayra Lopez • Niraldo Hernandez Padron and Mercedes Alina Falero • Luisa Palencia and Xiomara Rodriguez • Reinaldo F. Castillo • Hugo E. and Concepcion V. Diaz as Co–Trustees of the Diaz Family Revocable Trust • South American Tile, LLC • Gladys Hernandez According to the Menendez, Hernandez, and Lima plaintiffs’ deeds, none of the Menendez, Hernandez, or Lima plaintiffs own property in the Zena Gardens subdivision. The Zena Gardens subdivision plat states, in relevant part: That Louis Merwitzer and Rebecca Merwitzer his wife owners of the S.E. ¼ of the S.E. ¼ of Section 2, Township 54 South, Range 40 East, Miami, Dade County, Florida, excepting therefrom a strip of land off the westerly side which is the right of way of the Okeechobee–Miami Extension of the Florida 20 As the court noted in the June 29, 2018 decision on the prior cross-motions for summary judgment before the remand, after the original complaint in Castillo was filed, the complaint was amended twice, the first time, on March 31, 2017, “to join an additional twenty-two plaintiffs,” and the second time, on September 29, 2017, “to dismiss certain plaintiffs, resulting in the current nineteen plaintiffs in Castillo.” Castillo v. United States, 138 Fed. Cl. at 716. As the court also noted in the June 29, 2018 Opinion, the Menendez plaintiffs amended their complaint once, on January 19, 2018, after Castillo and Menendez were consolidated, to join an additional plaintiff, resulting the three current Menendez plaintiffs. See id. at 717. All Castillo and Menendez plaintiffs whose claims were previously at issue in the June 29, 2018 Opinion remain parties to the current litigation; no parties have been dismissed or joined in the Castillo and Menendez cases in the time since the June 29, 2018 Opinion. Since the original filing of the Hernandez and Lima plaintiffs’ claims on March 31, 2017, neither the Hernandez plaintiff nor the Lima plaintiff have filed amended complaints. 10 East Coast Railway, have caused to be made the attached plat entitled “Zena Gardens.” The Streets, Avenues and Terrace as shown together with all existing and future planting, trees and shrubbery there on are hereby dedicated to the perpetual use of the Public for proper purposes reserving to the said Louis Merwitzer and Rebecca Merwitzer, his wife, their heirs, successors or assigns, the reversion or reversions thereof whenever discontinued by law. On November 3, 1949, Erving and Harriett Moss platted a parcel of their land and called it the “Princess Park Manor” subdivision. According to the subdivision plat for the Princess Park Manor, previously submitted by the defendant in Castillo and Menendez before the remand and to which the plaintiffs do not take issue, the western border of Princess Park Manor is adjacent to the railroad corridor, which measures 100 feet wide and is labeled “East R/W Line of F.E.C. Ry.” Princess Park Manor is directly north of Zena Gardens, separated only by a street. According to the respective deeds submitted by the plaintiffs, the respective parcels of land owned by the following remaining plaintiffs in Castillo, and the plaintiffs in Menendez, Hernandez, and Lima are located in the Princess Park Manor subdivision: Castillo plaintiffs: • Gonzalo Padron Marino and Julia Garcia; and Mayda Rotella • Shops on Flagler, Inc. • Jose F. and Dora A. Dumenigo • Humberto J. and Josefa Marcia Diaz • Luis Crespo • Jose Luis and Grace Barsello Napole • Bernardo D. and Norma A. Manduley • Danilo A. and Dora Rodriguez • Avimael and Odalys Arevalo • Dalia Espinosa, Daniel Espinosa and Sofira Gonzalez Menendez plaintiffs: • Norma D. Gomez and Jose M. Martinez • Nelson Menendez and Osvaldo Borras, Jr. • Luis R. Schmidt Hernandez plaintiff: • Miriam Hernandez Lima plaintiff: • Claro Lima 11 The Princess Park Manor subdivision plat states, in relevant part: That ERVING A.MOSS and HARRIETT E.MOSS his wife, owners of the South ½ of the N.E. ¼, South of the Canal and East of the Florida East Coast Right–of–Way, located in Sec. 2 TWP.54 South, RGE. 40 East, Dade County Florida; being the land East of the Florida East coast Right–of–way and between Flagler Street and the Tamiami canal and extending East to Ludlum Road, ALSO The West ½ of the Northeast ¼ of the Southeast ¼ less the Florida East coast Right–of–way all in Sec. 2 Township 54 South RGE.40 East, Dade County, Florida, Said Florida East coast Right–of–way being the right-of-way of the Okeechobee Miami Extension of the Florida East Coast Railway, have caused to made the attached Plat entitled “PRINCESS PARK MANOR.” The Streets, Avenues, Roads, Terraces, Courts and Alleys as shown together with all existing and future planting, trees and shrubbery thereon are hereby dedicated to the perpetual use of the public for proper purposes, reserving to the said ERVING A.MOSS and HARRIETT E.MOSS, his wife their heirs; successors or assigns, the reversion or reversions thereof whenever discontinued by law. (capitalization and emphasis in original). As noted above, the subdivision plats for both the Zena Gardens and Princess Park Manor plats were previously submitted to the court before the remand. Between March 1977 and July 2016, all the plaintiffs in the above captioned cases acquired title in their respective parcels of land in the Princess Park Manor and Zena Gardens subdivisions. None of the deeds for any of the plaintiffs in Castillo, Menendez, Hernandez, and Lima provide the measurements of the respective parcels. Instead, the deeds for all plaintiffs in the above captioned cases state the particular subdivision in which the parcel is located, the parcel’s “Lot” number in the subdivision, and reference the particular subdivision plat in which the parcel is located. For example, the warranty deed for Menendez plaintiff Norma D. Gomez and Jose M. Martinez states that on May 31, 2005: [G]rantor [Margaret Ann Arguelles], for and in consideration of the sum of TEN AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($10.00) and other good and valuable considerations to said grantor in hand paid by said grantee [Norma D. Gomez and Jose M. Martinez], the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, has granted, bargained, and sold to the said grantee, and grantee's heirs and assigns forever, the following described land, situate, lying and being in Miami–Dade County, Florida to-wit: Lot 15, Block 11, of PRINCESS PARK MANOR, according to the Plat thereof, recorded in Plat Book 50, at Page 18, in the Public Records of Miami–Dade County, Florida. Parcel Identification Number: 0140020021710 12 (capitalization and emphasis in original; alterations added). Similarly, the warranty deed for Castillo plaintiff Reinaldo F. Castillo states that on June 15, 1977: [T]he grantor [Ramon and Maria Perez], for and inconsideration of the sum of $10.00 and other valuable considerations, receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, hereby grants, bargains, sells, aliens, remises, releases, conveys and confirms unto the grantee [Reinaldo F. and Margarita Castillo], all that certain land situate in Dade County, Florida, viz: Lot 8, in Block 11, of ZENA GARDENS, according to the Plat thereof, as recorded in Plat Book 46, at Page 51, of the Public Records of Dade County, Florida. (capitalization and emphasis in original; alterations added). Each of the parcels of land belonging to the plaintiffs is depicted, including the measurements thereof, on either the Zena Gardens plat or Princess Park Manor plat. All of the parcels belonging to the plaintiffs in Castillo, Menendez, Hernandez, and Lima are depicted on the subdivision plats as being directly to the east of the railroad corridor, however, none of the parcels, as depicted on the plats, extend onto the railroad corridor. In 2004, service over the railroad corridor ceased when the Florida East Coast Railway temporarily closed off a portion of the railway to perform emergency repair work on a bridge at milepost 12.23+. The temporary closure blocked access to the railroad corridor. When the section of the railroad opened again, shippers did not resume rail service and, according to the combined environmental and historical report attached to the Florida East Coast Railway’s abandonment petition before the United States Surface Transportation Board (STB), which along with the combined environmental and historical report was included as exhibits to the Castillo and Menendez plaintiffs’ previous submissions to the court before the remand, there were “no new sources of potential local traffic.” The Florida East Coast Railway Begins the Abandonment Process of the Railroad Corridor On January 21, 2016, the Florida East Coast Railway began the process to “abandon” the railroad corridor at issue by filing a verified notice of exemption with the STB. The Florida East Coast Railway’s January 21, 2016 “Verified Notice of Exemption” stated that the Florida East Coast Railway “plans to abandon the Line, salvage the track and materials and convert the property to trail use.” On February 10, 2016, the STB published the notice exemption in the Federal Register and the exemption became effective on March 11, 2016. On October 31, 2016, Florida East Coast Industries, LLC sent a letter to the STB requesting a “notice of interim trail use/rail banking” over the railroad corridor and submitting its willingness to assume financial responsibility pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 1152.29 (2016). On November 1, 2016, the Florida East Coast Railway sent a letter to the STB stating it “agree[d] to negotiate interim trail use/rail banking for the Line with FECI [Florida East Coast Industries].” (alterations added). On November 21, 2016, the STB invoked section 8(d) of the Trails Act, 16 U.S.C. § 1247(d) (2012), and 13 issued its “DECISION AND NOTICE OF INTERIM TRAIL USE OR ABANDONMENT” (NITU), authorizing the Florida East Coast Railway to negotiate a trail use agreement with the Florida East Coast Industries. (capitalization in original). On July 18, 2017, the Florida East Coast Railway notified the STB that it had entered a purchase sale agreement with the Florida East Coast Industries for the “rail banking/interim trail use” of the rail line at issue. PROCEDURAL HISTORY The plaintiffs in the Castillo and Menendez cases originally brought suit on December 7, 2016, and December 12, 2017, respectively. The Menendez case was originally assigned to Judge Thomas C. Wheeler of this court and was subsequently transferred to the undersigned. The Menendez complaint raised the same issues of law and fact as alleged by the Castillo plaintiffs, and the Menendez plaintiffs alleged they own land underlying the same section of the railroad corridor at issue in the Castillo case. The plaintiffs and defendant in both Castillo and Menendez were previously represented in each case by the same attorneys of record,21 who filed a joint notice before this court on February 23, 2018, stating that the “same issues of law and facts apply to both cases.” This court previously ordered the two cases consolidated on January 12, 2018. 21 Davene Walker of the United States Department of Justice has been defendant’s counsel of record for the Castillo and Menendez cases since the filing of each case. The initial complaint in Castillo was filed by counsel of record Mark F. Hearne, II, then of Arent Fox, LLP. On March 21, 2017, Lindsay S.C. Brinton, also of Arent Fox, LLP, moved to substitute herself as counsel of record in Castillo, which the court granted the following day. Following the substitution of Ms. Brinton in Castillo, the initial complaint Menendez was filed by Ms. Brinton as counsel of record, then still of Arent Fox, LLP. Two days after the initial Menendez complaint was filed, a Notice of Indirectly Related Case, referring to Castillo, was filed in Menendez, however, Mr. Hearne was listed as the counsel of record on that notice. A motion to substitute Ms. Brinton for Mr. Hearne as counsel of record in Menendez was filed and granted on January 12, 2018. At the time the cases were consolidated on January 12, 2018, all Castillo and Menendez plaintiffs were represented by Ms. Brinton as counsel of record. Ms. Brinton remained counsel of record for both Castillo and Menendez as of the time of filing the respective motions for reconsiderations in those cases on July 30, 2018, and the notice of appeal in both Castillo and Menendez on October 31, 2018. Mr. Hearne notified the court by a Notice of Change of Contact Information on October 9, 2019, that he had left Arent Fox, LLP for a new firm, the True North Law Group, LLC. At a time not indicated by the filings in Castillo and Menendez, Ms. Brinton and Meghan S. Largent also left Arent Fox, LLP for Lewis Rice, LLC. Between April 29, 2020 and May 5, 2020, Ms. Largent, James H. Hulme of Arent Fox, LLP, and Mr. Hearne filed motions to substitute themselves as counsels of record for certain individual Castillo and Menendez plaintiffs. The current arrangement of plaintiffs and counsels of record, including affiliations of plaintiffs’ attorneys, is discussed below. 14 The plaintiffs in the Hernandez and Lima cases originally brought suit as co- plaintiffs in one case, Hernandez, et al., v. United States, on March 31, 2017.22 The Hernandez case was originally assigned to Judge Lydia Kay Griggsby of this court, was reassigned to Judge Richard A. Hertling on June 21, 2019, and was subsequently transferred to the undersigned on May 14, 2020. On April 16, 2021, this court severed the claims of plaintiff Claro Lima from the claims of then pro se plaintiff Miriam Hernandez. Ms. Hernandez had failed to appear at scheduled hearings, leading to the decision to proceed as two distinct cases: Hernandez, Case No. 17-468L, and Lima, Case No. 17- 4680L. Plaintiff Miriam Hernandez subsequently retained counsel Meghan S. Largent of Lewis Rice, LLC on May 7, 2021, and is now represented by the same counsel of record as the plaintiff in Lima and certain Castillo and Menendez plaintiffs.23 In the complaints currently before the court, the Castillo and Menendez plaintiffs allege they are “Florida landowners who are owed compensation for their property rights 22 Davene Walker of the United States Department of Justice has been the defendant’s counsel of record for the Hernandez and Lima cases since those cases were originally filed. The initial complaint in Hernandez was filed by counsel of record Cecilia Hagan Stultz of Maglio, Christopher & Toale, PA. On January 29, 2018, Christina E. Unkel, also of Maglio, Christopher & Toale, PA, filed a motion to substitute herself as counsel of record in Hernandez, which was granted the same day. On April 11, 2019, Ms. Unkel filed a motion to withdraw from the representation of Miriam Hernandez, and on April 24, 2019, Ms. Largent of Lewis Rice, LLC filed a motion to substitute herself as counsel of record for Claro Lima. Ms. Largent’s motion to substitute was granted on April 24, 2019, and Ms. Unkel’s motion to withdraw was granted on April 29, 2019, after which point Ms. Hernandez proceeded pro se until her hiring of Ms. Largent over two years later, after the Lima case had been severed from Hernandez. 23 In the time since the plaintiffs in the above captioned cases filed their respective initial complaints, the attorneys representing certain plaintiffs have shuffled on multiple occasions as attorneys representing various clients have changed law firms. As of the time of filing this Opinion, the plaintiffs are represented as follows. The following plaintiffs are represented by James H. Hulme, with Laurel LaMontagne, of Arent Fox, LLP: Castillo plaintiffs: • Reinaldo Castillo • Danilo and Dora Rodriguez The following plaintiffs are represented by Mark F. Hearne, II, with Stephen S. Davis, of True North Law, LLC, who were formerly attorneys at Arent Fox, LLP: Castillo plaintiffs: • Avimael and Odalys Arevalo • Luis Crespo • Hugo and Concepcion V. Diaz as Co-Trustees of Diaz Family Revocable Trust • Bernard and Norma Manduley • Jose Luis and Grace Barsello Napole 15 taken by the federal government as a result of its authorization that the right-of-way be converted to a public recreation trail.” The Castillo and Menendez complaints state that each of the Castillo and Menendez plaintiffs owned their property on November 21, 2016, when the STB issued the NITU, and that each plaintiff’s “property abuts[24] and underlies • Niraldo Hernandez Padron and Mercedes Alina Falero • Luisa Palencia and Xiomara Rodriguez • Alberto Perez • Lourdez Rodriguez • Shops on Flagler, Inc. Menendez plaintiff: • Nelson Menendez and Osvaldo Borras, Jr. The following plaintiffs are represented by Meghan S. Largent, with Lindsay S.C. Brinton, of Lewis Rice, LLC, who were formerly attorneys at Arent Fox, LLP: Castillo plaintiffs: • Humberto J. and Josefa Marica Diaz • Jose F. and Dora A. Dumenigo • Dalia Espinosa, Daniel Espinosa and Sofira Gonzalez • Gladys Hernandez • Mayra Lopez • Gonzalo Padron Marino and Julia Garcia; and Mayda Rotella • South American Tile, LLC Menendez plaintiffs: • Norma D. Gomez and Jose M. Martinez • Luis R. Schmidt Hernandez plaintiff: • Miriam Hernandez Lima plaintiff: • Claro Lima 24 Plaintiffs state in their complaints in Castillo and Menendez that their respective properties “abut” the railroad corridor. It appears, however, that both sets of plaintiffs use the term “abut” interchangeably with “adjacent” in their filings in Castillo and Menendez. In the parties’ “Joint Stipulations Regarding Title,” filed in both Castillo and Menendez before the remand, the parties stated that the respective properties for both sets of plaintiffs are “[a]djacent” to the railroad corridor. Likewise, the government states in its cross-motion for partial summary judgment prior to the remand in Castillo and Menendez that all of the plaintiffs’ properties are “adjacent” to the railroad corridor. (alteration added). The plaintiffs in Hernandez and Lima state that their property is “adjacent to the 16 the former Railroad right-of-way, which is now subject to an easement for an interim public-access trail and possible future railroad reactivation.” (alteration added). The Castillo and Menendez plaintiffs claim that the government “took these Florida owners’ land for a public recreational trail by an order of the federal Surface Transportation Board invoking a provision of the federal Trails Act.” The Castillo and Menendez plaintiffs also claim that “when the federal government authorizes a public recreational trail across an owner’s land, the fifth amendment requires the government to compensate the owner.” The Castillo and Menendez plaintiffs seek “full fair-market value of the property taken by the government on the date it was taken,” including “severance damage,” “delay” damages, litigation costs and attorneys' fees, and “[s]uch further relief as this Court may deem just and proper.” (alteration added). In their original complaint, filed before the claims of the Hernandez and Lima plaintiffs were severed, the Hernandez and Lima plaintiffs allege that they “are the fee owners of real property in Miami Dade County, Florida,” that their land is “adjacent to the abandoned railroad right-of-way,” and that “Plaintiffs’ predecessor owners granted easements to FEC [Florida East Coast Railway] for the sole purpose of operating a railroad, and not for any other general or recreational purpose.” (alteration added). The Hernandez and Lima plaintiffs further allege that “[o]n November 21, 2016, the STB issued an [sic] NITU for the Line,” which amounted to “[t]he appropriation of a new easement for an interim public recreational trail,” that “is a taking of Plaintiffs’ property for which the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution requires that the United States pay just compensation to Plaintiffs.” (alterations added). The Hernandez and Lima plaintiffs seek “just compensation for the value of their property taken by the federal government,” which “includes compensation for the delay between the time their property was taken, November 21, 2016, and when the federal government ultimately pays Plaintiffs their compensation,” as well as “attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses incurred in bringing this action pursuant to the URA [Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970], 42 U.S.C. §4654(c).” (alteration added). The parties in Castillo and Menendez filed “Joint Stipulations Regarding Title” during earlier proceedings before remand, and the parties in Hernandez and Lima filed “Joint Stipulations Regarding Title” after remand, on May 19, 2021 with respect to Ms. Hernandez and on August 18, 2021 with respect to Mr. Lima. All parties have stipulated to certain threshold issues. All parties agree that all plaintiffs owned their corresponding parcels on November 21, 2016, when the STB issued the NITU, and that plaintiffs’ corresponding parcels are “[a]djacent” to the railroad corridor. (alteration added). The parties in Castillo and Menendez also stipulate that the rights-of-way the Florida East Coast Railway obtained through the four final judgments in the condemnation proceedings were each an “[e]asement.” (alteration added). The parties in Hernandez and Lima did not stipulate that the Florida East Coast Railway obtained the rights-of-way as an easement, but in defendant’s filings in the Hernandez and Lima cases, defendant acknowledged that “[a]ll of the condemnation orders granted the railroad easements over abandoned railroad right-of-way” and do not use the phrase “abuts,” unlike the Castillo and Menendez plaintiffs. 17 the subject lands, not fee simple title to those lands.” (emphasis in original; alteration added). On January 19, 2022, the parties filed “Amended Joint Stipulations” in Castillo, Menendez, Hernandez, and Lima, as well as in Alvarez, each containing the same table reflecting the claims of all plaintiffs whose claims are currently before the court, as well as the claim of the Alvarez plaintiff. The table, reproduced below in the form provided by the parties, displays each plaintiff's name, claim number (with respect to Castillo plaintiffs) or case name and number (with respect to Menendez, Hernandez, Lima and Alvarez plaintiffs), and parcel number of the plaintiff's parcel located in either the Zena Gardens or Princess Park Manor subdivision. The table also displays the “Applicable RR [Railroad] Conveyance” claimed by plaintiffs and defendant for each of the plaintiffs’ parcels, which refers to one of the four condemnation proceedings.25 (alteration added). The table further displays the “Nature of RR [Railroad] Ownership” as alleged by plaintiffs and defendant, which refers to the interest the Florida East Coast Railway obtained in each of the conveyances at issue. (alteration added). At present, plaintiffs claim that the “Nature of RR [Railroad] Ownership” with respect to every conveyance is that of an easement, and defendant claims that the “Nature of RR [Railroad] Ownership” with respect to every conveyance is that of fee title. (alterations added). The table also indicates that each plaintiff owned his or her particular parcel of land on the NITU date and states that each of the plaintiffs’ parcels are “Adjacent to ROW [right-of-way].” (alteration added). 25 Prior tables of plaintiffs’ claims submitted by the parties included reference to the Stanley judgment and Holman deed as applicable conveyances to certain plaintiffs. The most recent chart joint submitted by the parties on January 19, 2022, however, does not indicate that either the Stanley judgment or the Holman deed is an applicable conveyance to any plaintiff in any of the above captioned cases. 18 Castillo, et al., v. United States, Case No. 16-1624L; Menendez, et al. v. United States, Case No. 17-1931L; Hernandez v. United States, Case No. 17-468L; Lima v. United States, Case No. 17-4680L; Alvarez v. United States, Case No. 21-610L Claim Plaintiffs Parcel Owned Adjacent Applicable Applicable Nature of Nature of Number Number Parcel to RR RR RR RR (Castillo) on ROW [Railroad] [Railroad] [Railroad] [Railroad] or Case NITU [right- Conveyance Conveyance Ownership Ownership No. Date of- (Plaintiffs) (US) (Plaintiffs) (US) way] 12 Gonzalo 01-4002- Yes Yes J. Pyles, J. 1937 Padron 002- Owens Quitclaim Easement Fee Marino 0220 Judgment Deed (Bk and Julia (Bk 24, Pg 1806, Pg Garcia; 208) 127) and Mayda Rotella 17 Shops on 01-4002- Yes Yes J. Pyles, J. 1937 Fee Flagler, Inc. 002- Owens Quitclaim Easement 1780 Judgment Deed (Bk (Bk 24, Pg 1806, Pg 208) 127) 21 Jose F. 01-4002- Yes Yes J. Pyles, J. 1937 Fee and Dora 002- Owens Quitclaim Easement A. 1730 Judgment Deed (Bk Dumenigo (Bk 24, Pg 1806, Pg 208) 127) 22 Humberto 01-4002- Yes Yes J. Pyles, J. 1937 Fee J. and 002- Owens Quitclaim Easement Josefa 1720 Judgment Deed (Bk Marcia (Bk 24, Pg 1806, Pg Diaz 208) 127) 29 Luis 01-4002- Yes Yes W. Johnson 1937 Fee Crespo 002- Judgment Quitclaim Easement 1650 (Bk 24, Pg Deed (Bk 207) 1806, Pg 127) 30 Jose Luis 01-4002- Yes Yes W. Johnson 1937 Fee and Grace 002- Judgment Quitclaim Easement Barsello 1640 (Bk 24, Pg Deed (Bk Napole 207) 1806, Pg 127) 19 31 Bernardo 01-4002- Yes Yes W. Johnson 1937 Fee D. and 002- Judgment Quitclaim Easement Norma A. 1630 (Bk 24, Pg Deed (Bk Manduley 207) 1806, Pg 127) 33 Danilo A. 01-4002- Yes Yes W. Johnson 1937 Fee and Dora 002- Judgment Quitclaim Easement Rodriguez 1610 (Bk 24, Pg Deed (Bk 207) 1806, Pg 127) 34 Avimael 01-4002- Yes Yes W. Johnson 1937 Fee and Odalys 002- Judgment Quitclaim Easement Arevalo 1600 (Bk 24, Pg Deed (Bk 207) 1806, Pg 127) 36 Dalia 01-4002- Yes Yes W. Johnson 1937 Fee Espinosa, 002- Judgment Quitclaim Easement Daniel 1580 (Bk 24, Pg Deed (Bk Espinosa 207) 1806, Pg and Sofira 127) [Gonzalez 26] 43 Lourdez 01-4002- Yes Yes P. Russo 1937 Easement Fee Rodriguez 001- Judgment Quitclaim 1370 (Bk 24, Pg Deed (Bk 83) 1806, Pg 127) 44 Alberto 01-4002- Yes Yes P. Russo 1937 Easement Fee Perez 001- Judgment Quitclaim 1380 (Bk 24, Pg Deed (Bk 83) 1806, Pg 127) 45 Mayra 01-4002- Yes Yes P. Russo 1937 Easement Fee Lopez 001- Judgment Quitclaim 1390 (Bk 24, Pg Deed (Bk 83) 1806, Pg 127) 26The table provided by the parties in their “Amended Joint Stipulations of Title” after remand omits the surname “Gonzalez” from Castillo plaintiff Sofira Gonzalez. 20 46 Niraldo 01-4002- Yes Yes P. Russo 1937 Easement Fee Hernandez 001- Judgment Quitclaim Padron and 1400 (Bk 24, Pg Deed (Bk Mercedes 83) 1806, Pg Alina 127) Falero 47 Luisa 01-4002- Yes Yes P. Russo 1937 Easement Fee Palencia 001- Judgment Quitclaim and 1410 (Bk 24, Pg Deed (Bk Xiomara 83) 1806, Pg Rodriguez 127) 49 Reinaldo F. 01-4002- Yes Yes P. Russo 1937 Easement Fee Castillo 001- Judgment Quitclaim 1430 (Bk 24, Pg Deed (Bk 83) 1806, Pg 127) 50 Hugo E. 01-4002- Yes Yes P. Russo 1937 Easement Fee and 001- Judgment Quitclaim Concepcio 1440 (Bk 24, Pg Deed (Bk n V. Diaz 83) 1806, Pg as Co- 127) Trustees of the Diaz Family Revocable [Trust27] 51 South 01-4002- Yes Yes P. Russo 1937 Easement Fee American 001- Judgment Quitclaim Tile, LLC 1450 (Bk 24, Pg Deed (Bk 83) 1806, Pg 127) 52 Gladys 01-4002- Yes Yes P. Russo 1937 Easement Fee Hernandez 001- Judgment Quitclaim 1460 (Bk 24, Pg Deed (Bk 83) 1806, Pg 127) 27The table provided by the parties in their “Amended Joint Stipulations of Title” after remand omits the word “Trust” from Castillo plaintiff Hugo E. and Concepcion V. Diaz as Co-Trustees of the Diaz Family Revocable Trust. 21 Menendez, Norma D. 01-4002- Yes Yes J. Pyles, J. 1937 Easement Fee Case No. Gomez and 002- Owens Quitclaim 17-1931 Jose M. 1710 Judgment Deed (Bk Martinez (Bk 24, Pg 1806, Pg 208) 127) Menendez, Nelson 01-4002- Yes Yes J. Pyles, J. 1937 Easement Fee Case No. Menendez 002- Owens Quitclaim 17-1931 and 1690 Judgment Deed (Bk Osvaldo (Bk 24, Pg 1806, Pg Borras, Jr. 208) 127) Menendez, Luis R. 01-4002- Yes Yes W. Johnson 1937 Easement Fee Case No. Schmidt 002- Judgment Quitclaim 17-1931 1660 (Bk 24, Pg Deed (Bk 207) 1806, Pg 127) Hernandez, Miriam 01-4002- Yes Yes J. Pyles, J. 1937 Easement Fee Case No. Hernandez 002- Owens Quitclaim 17-468 1740 Judgment Deed (Bk (Bk 24, Pg 1806, Pg 208) 127) Hernandez, Claro Lima 01-4002- Yes Yes W. Johnson 1937 Easement Fee Case No. 002- Judgment Quitclaim 17-468 [sic] 1590 (Bk 24, Pg Deed (Bk 207) 1806, Pg 127) Alvarez, Eduardo 01-4002- Yes Yes J. Pyles, J. 1937 Easement Fee Case No. and Marilyn 002- Owens Quitclaim 21-610 Alvarez 0260 Judgment Deed (Bk (Bk 24, Pg 1806, Pg 208) 127) (capitalization and emphasis in original; alterations and footnotes added). The United States Court of Federal Claims’ June 29, 2018 Opinion Granting Defendant’s Cross-Motions for Partial summary judgment As detailed above, after plaintiffs filed their complaints, the Castillo plaintiffs twice amended their complaint to join and voluntarily dismiss certain plaintiffs, the Menendez plaintiffs amended their complaint once to join one plaintiff, and defendant filed answers. The Castillo and Menendez plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment as to the government’s liability for taking their property without just compensation with respect to the relevant easements making up portions of the railroad corridor. The government in Castillo cross-moved for partial summary judgment with respect to the portion of the railroad corridor conveyed by the Holman deed, stating that it was not liable for any takings with respect to that portion of the railroad corridor because the Holman deed granted fee simple title to the Florida East Coast Railway as to that portion of the railroad 22 corridor. See Castillo v. United States, 138 Fed. Cl. at 730 (“In Castillo, the government has cross-moved for partial summary judgment ‘as to the railroad’s ownership of portions of the rail line’ that the Florida East Coast Railway ‘acquired by [the Holman] deed.’” (alteration in original)).28 The government further argued in both its cross-motions for partial summary judgment before the remand in Castillo and Menendez that it was not liable for any alleged takings of the railroad corridor at issue because the Castillo and Menendez plaintiffs could not prove that they owned the land underlying the rights-of-way at issue. See id. at 734 (“The government responds in its cross-motion for summary judgment in Castillo that the plaintiffs ‘have failed to prove that they are the fee owners of some or all of the portions of the railroad corridor acquired by condemnation.’”) and id. at 735 (explaining that “in Menendez, the government argues in its cross-motion for partial summary judgment that the ‘plaintiffs cannot prove that they are the owners of portions of the railroad corridor acquired by condemnation’”). Plaintiffs argued, for the first time in their respective reply briefs in support of their motions for partial summary judgment before remand, that under Florida law the “centerline presumption” provides that “‘[e]ach landowner whose property borders the abandoned right-of-way is presumed by Florida law to own the land underlying the right-of-way, up to the center line of the right-of-way.’” Castillo v. United States, 138 Fed. Cl. at 734 (alteration added). The subdivision plats which are also at issue in the cross-motions for partial summary judgment currently before the court after remand were first relied on by defendant in support of its cross-motions for partial summary judgment in Castillo and Menendez before the remand, and subsequently by plaintiffs in support of their motions for reconsideration. Before the remand, the court found that the Holman deed conveyed fee simple title to the Florida East Coast Railway and that the nine Castillo plaintiffs who alleged their interests in the land underlying the railroad corridor were in whole or in part derived from the Holman deed had no cognizable property interest in the portion of the railroad corridor conveyed in the Holman deed, and, therefore, that no taking occurred with respect to that land.29 See id. 28As this court previously explained in its June 29, 2018 Opinion before the remand, the Castillo plaintiffs who had previously claimed an interest in the land conveyed by the Holman deed “responded to the government’s cross-motion for partial summary judgment as to the Holman conveyance that none of the Castillo plaintiffs are ‘seeking summary judgment [in their motion for partial summary judgment] for any land described in the 1923 Holman Deed.’” Castillo v. United States, 168 Fed. Cl. at 731 (alteration in original). This court further explained, however, that the relevant portion of the railroad corridor “is comprised of both the Russo right-of-way and the result of the Holman conveyance,” and, therefore, “whether these nine Castillo plaintiffs own the land underlying what was included in the Holman conveyance is at issue.” Id. 29 As noted above, after the remand, no plaintiff with a claim currently before the court alleges a property interest in the land conveyed by the Holman deed as the basis for their claim in the above captioned cases, although certain plaintiffs alleged such an interest when their claims were first filed in this court before the remand. All plaintiffs who previously alleged an interest in the land conveyed by the Holman deed also previously 23 When evaluating the Castillo and Menendez plaintiffs’ argument regarding the centerline presumption before the remand, this court interpreted the centerline presumption under Florida law, and relied on a decision of the Supreme Court of Florida, which had analyzed Florida law certified to it by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Rogers v. United States, 184 So. 3d 1087 (Fla. 2015), as well as other Supreme Court of Florida precedents of Jacksonville, Tallahassee & Key West Railway Co. v. Lockwood, 15 So. 327 (Fla. 1894), and Smith v. Horn, 70 So. 435 (Fla. 1915). As this court explained in the June 29, 2018 Opinion, the centerline presumption “‘is a rule of construction that is employed to aid in determining the grantor’s intent’ as to whether the grantor intended to retain title to the land underlying the easement or pass title to his grantees.” Castillo v. United States, 138 Fed. Cl. at 736 (quoting Rogers v. United States, 184 So. 3d at 1098). As the Supreme Court of Florida explained, the centerline presumption holds “that where a street or highway is the boundary of a lot or piece of land, that the owner of such land owns the soil to the center of such street or highway, subject to the right of the public to pass and repass over and along it.” Fla. So. Ry. Co. v. Brown, 1 So. 512, 513 (Fla. 1887). The centerline presumption is not absolute, however, and, as this court held in its June 29, 2018 Opinion, the centerline presumption “can be rebutted in certain circumstances.” Castillo v. United States, 138 Fed. Cl. at 736. This court determined that the center line presumption can be rebutted, for example, by evidence that the grantor did not own the land underlying the easement at issue, or, if there was ownership of such land, evidence that the grantor clearly reserved title to the land, such that the adjoining landowner would have no interest in the easement. Id. at 738. This court construed the plats of the two subdivisions in which the Castillo and Menendez plaintiffs’ properties were located, consistent with the Florida District Court of Appeal for the Second District’s decision in North Lauderdale Corp. v. Lyons, 156 So. 2d 690 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1963), which held that “[t]he plat must be construed as a whole and every part of the instrument be given effect” and that “the plat should be construed fairly and reasonably with no part rejected as superfluous.” N. Lauderdale Corp. v. Lyons, 156 So. 2d at 692 (alteration added). With respect to the Zena Gardens plat, this court determined that the language “excepting therefrom a strip of land off the westerly side which is the right of way of the Okeechobee-Miami Extension of the Florida East Coast Railway,” included in the plat, indicated that “the railroad corridor is not included in the Zena Gardens subdivision,” and that the nine Castillo plaintiffs’ parcels “end at the edge of the railroad corridor.” Castillo v. United States, 138 Fed. Cl. at 740. With respect to the Princess Park Manor plat, this court determined that the language “‘East of the Florida East Coast Right-of-Way’” and “‘less the Florida East Coast Right-of-Way,’” included in the plat, indicated that “the railroad corridor is not included in the platted subdivision” and that the ten Castillo and three Menendez plaintiffs’ parcels “end at the edge of the railroad corridor.” Id. at 741. For these reasons, this court concluded that the centerline alleged an interest in land underlying the Russo right-of-way, and continue to allege such interests after the remand. 24 presumption was rebutted with respect to all Castillo and Menendez plaintiffs and that the Castillo and Menendez plaintiffs had no cognizable interest in the railroad corridor. Therefore, this court held that all Castillo and Menendez plaintiffs’ takings claims failed as to the portion of the railroad corridor that the Florida East Coast Railway obtained through the four condemnation proceedings in 1924. See id. at 740, 742. Accordingly, this court granted the government’s cross-motions for partial summary judgment in Castillo and Menendez, and denied the Castillo and Menendez plaintiffs’ respective motions for partial summary judgment. See id. at 742. Following this court’s decision on the parties’ cross-motions for partial summary judgment, the Castillo and Menendez plaintiffs moved for reconsideration, see Castillo v. United States, 140 Fed. Cl. at 593, challenging “‘whether this Court correctly applied the centerline presumption,’” but did not seek reconsideration of the court’s Opinion with respect to the Holman deed. See id. at 597-98. The Castillo and Menendez plaintiffs tried to support their motions for reconsideration with the subdivision plats of the Zena Gardens and Princess Park Manor subdivisions, which defendant previously produced in support of its cross-motions for partial summary judgment before remand. The Castillo and Menendez plaintiffs also submitted evidence to support their motions for reconsideration in this court which was “not previously submitted by the Castillo and Menendez plaintiffs when briefing their motions for summary judgment” prior to the court’s issuance of its June 29, 2018 Opinion, including the chains of title for Castillo plaintiff Reinaldo F. Castillo, in the Zena Gardens subdivision, and Menendez plaintiff Nelson Menendez, in the Princess Park Manor subdivision.30 See id. at 598. Chains of title for the properties of “the remaining eighteen Castillo plaintiffs and remaining two Menendez plaintiffs” were not submitted, which omission was “without explanation,” as this court noted in its Opinion denying the motions for reconsideration. See id. The two chains of title submitted by plaintiffs have subsequently been relied upon by defendant in support of its motions for partial summary judgment currently under consideration after remand and are discussed below. Each of the deeds in the Zena Gardens chain of title, which plaintiffs first produced in support of their motions for reconsideration, up to and including the 1946 Merwitzer deed, conveyed a parcel of land approximately 40 acres in area, the size of the Zena 30 In addition to the chains of title, the Castillo and Menendez plaintiffs attempted to support their motions for reconsideration in this court with two declarations, “a copy of three sections of the 2012 Florida Uniform Title Standards,” and two deeds which were duplicative of deeds in the chains of title. See Castillo v. United States, 140 Fed. Cl. at 598. The Castillo and Menendez plaintiffs put forth the declarations as authorities on Florida law, which this court held “do not change the court’s June 29, 2018 conclusion.” Id. at 603. This court explained that “[a]ny explanation or interpretation offered” in the declarations “as to how the centerline presumption should be applied in the above- captioned cases, however, is not binding on this court,” because “[i]t is the role of the court to interpret and apply Florida State law in the above-captioned cases, as interpreted by the Florida courts.” Id. at 602 (alteration added) (citing Chi. Coating Co., LLC v. United States, 892 F.3d 1164, 1170 (Fed. Cir. 2018)). 25 Gardens subdivision once platted. The chain of title report for the Zena Gardens subdivision contains the following deeds. Three deeds described the property conveyed as “subject to” the Florida East Coast Railway right-of-way: the 1924 Russo deed, from Paul and Lucy Russo to Antonio Lanese, described the property conveyed therein as “SUBJECT TO: Judgment dated Oct. 28, 1924 in the case, Florida East Coast Railway Company, a corp., vs. Paul Russo, et al. [sic],”31 (capitalization in original; alteration added), while both the 1925 Lanese deed, from Antonio and Marie Lanese to the Lanese Investment Company, and the 1927 Lanese deed, from the Lanese Investment Company to Antonio Lanese, described the property conveyed therein as “subject to the right of way of the Florida East Coast Railway.” The 1945 Hollett deed, from Carmen Lanese to T.C. and Myrtle Hollett, described the land it conveyed as less that certain strip of land off the Westerly portion of the above described property, more particularly described as: Said strip being bounded on the West by the West boundary line of above mentioned fractional part of said Section, on the East by a line parallel to and fifty (50) feet East of the center line of the Okeechobee-Miami Extension of the Florida East Coast Railway as surveyed, and located, and on the North and South by the respective boundary lines of said aforementioned fractional part of said Section, said strip being twenty-five and thirty-three one-hundredths (25.33) feet wide at the North end, and one and two-tenths (1.2) feet wide at the South end, containing in all forty-one one-hundredths (0.41) acres, more or less. (capitalization in original). The 1945 Merwitzer deed, from T.C. and Myrtle Hollett to Louis Merwitzer, the 1945 Central Construction deed, from Louis and Rebecca Merwitzer to Central Construction Company, Inc., and the 1946 Merwitzer deed, from Central Construction Company, Inc., to Louis Merwitzer, all contain nearly identical descriptions of the property conveyed as the 1945 Hollett deed, with only slight variations such as the placement and capitalization of the word “less;” the spelling out of “50,” “25.33,” “1.2,” and “0.41;” and minor differences in capitalization, punctuation, spelling, and wording of the descriptions. Following the 1946 Merwitzer deed, in 1947 a conveyance was made by deed from Louis and Rebecca Merwitzer to Zena Gardens, Inc. in order to plat the Zena Gardens subdivision, with the land conveyed thereby described by reference to the attached Zena Gardens plat. The Princess Park Manor chain of title, which plaintiffs first produced in support of their motions for reconsideration, begins with three quitclaim deeds conveying property to A. B. Small from W.J. and Mary Elle Weller, from L.A. and Mabel E. Lins, and from Douglas and Theodora W. Nicholson, each recorded on December 7, 1925, and none of 31 The three deeds providing an identical description of the land conveyed with a reference to the 1924 Russo judgment do not provide a citation to the 1924 Russo judgment. Moreover, while a typewritten form memorializing the judgment is included in the record before the court, the judgment, which was entered by the Circuit Court for Dade County, Florida, in 1924, does not appear to be reported or otherwise available on legal databases. 26 which refer to the Florida East Coast Railway right-of-way. Following the 1925 Small deeds, the next conveyance was the 1934 Dallas Investment Company deed, from the City of Miami to Dallas Investment Company, which described the land it conveyed as: S1/2 of NE1/4 S of Canal less F. E. C. & S. A. F. right of way, and W1/2 of NE1/4 of SE1/4, less F. E. C. right of way, less N. 35’ St. and less S. 35’ St., Section 2, Township 54 South, Range 40 East, in the City of Miami, County of Dade, State of Florida. (capitalization in original). The 1936 Long Company deed, from the Southern Drainage District to The Long Company, described the land it conveyed as: The West Half of the North-east Quarter of the South-east Quarter less the Railway, all in Section Two, Township Fifty-four South, Range Forty East, consisting of Thirty-five acres and Nineteen 11/100 acres respectively. (capitalization in original). The 1947 Eristavi-Tchitcherine deed, from The Long Company to Princess Lucy Eristavi-Tchitcherine, described the land it conveyed as: The South one-half (S ½) of the Northeast one-quarter (NE ¼) South of the Canal and East of the F.E.C. right-of-way, located in Section 2, Township 54-South, Range 40-East, Dade County, Florida; being the Land East of the F.E.C. right-of-way and between Flagler Street and the Tamiami Canal and extending East to Ludlam Road; also The West one-half (W ½) of the Northeast one-quarter (NE ¼) of the Southeast one-quarter (SE ¼) less the F.E.C. right-of-way, all in Section 2, Township 54-South Range 40-East, Dade County, Florida, together with the improvements thereon. (capitalization in original). The 1949 Moss deed, from the Estate of Lucy Cotton Thomas (identified in the prior deed as Princess Lucy Eristavi-Tchitcherine) to Erving A. Moss, who would plat the Princess Park Manor subdivision, provided an identical description of the land as the 1947 Eristavi-Tchitcherine deed, with exception of capitalization differences, spelling differences such as “Northeast Quarter” instead of “Northeast one- quarter (NE ¼)” and “Southeast Quarter” instead of “Southeast one-quarter (SE ¼),” omitting “(W ½)” and certain hyphens, spelling out “Florida East Coast,” and omitting the phrase “together with the improvements thereon.” (capitalization in original). The 1949 Moss deed was the final conveyance before the platting of the Princess Park Manor subdivision in 1949. In opposition to the Castillo and Menendez plaintiffs’ motions for reconsideration of the court’s June 29, 2018 Opinion, and more than one and a half years after the Castillo plaintiffs filed their original complaint, defendant produced, for the first time, a quitclaim deed, executed May 6, 1937 and identified by defendant as a “tax deed” (the 1937 deed).32 The 1937 deed identifies two separate land conveyances involving the Southern Drainage District, a local taxing authority, the first conveyance on August 7, 1933, and 32Because the 1937 deed is identified as a “tax deed” but memorializes a quitclaim conveyance, the court identifies the deed as “the 1937 deed” to avoid confusion. 27 the second conveyance on May 6, 1937. According to the 1937 deed, the 1933 conveyance and the 1937 conveyance both concerned the same parcels of land. According to the 1937 deed, “at a sale held by Bob Simpson, as Tax Collector of Dade County, on the 7th day of August, 1933, to enforce the collection of the unpaid taxes levied by said District for the year 1932,” the Southern Drainage District acquired interests in certain parcels of land. The 1937 deed, however, does not specify if the Southern Drainage District acquired fee simple or some other type of interest in the parcels of land at the 1933 tax sale. Further, although the 1937 deed states that the 1933 tax sale was held “to enforce the collection of the unpaid” drainage taxes for 1932, the 1937 deed does not identify the parties who failed to pay the drainage taxes in 1932. Defendant has not produced any records from the 1933 tax sale at any point in the litigation of the above captioned cases. Additionally, the 1937 deed memorializes a conveyance by the Southern Drainage District to the Florida East Coast Railway on May 6, 1937. The 1937 deed provides: This Indenture, Made this 6th day of May, A. D. 1937, between the SOUTHERN DRAINAGE DISTRICT, a drainage district of the State of Florida, created by Chapter 7599, Laws of Florida, Acts of 1917 and Acts amendatory thereto, party of the first part, and Florida East Coast Railway, A Florida Corporation St. Augustine [sic] of the County of St. Johns and State of Fla., party of the second part: WITNESSETH, that the said party of the first part, for and in consideration of the sum of ONE DOLLAR ($1.00) AND OTHER VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, in hand paid by the party of the second part the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, has remised, released, and quit-claimed, and by these presents does remise, release, and quit-claim unto the said party of the second part, and his heirs and assigns forever, all the right, title, interest, claim, and demand which the said party of the # 193, 480, 482, 484, 662[33] first part acquired at a sale held by Bob Simpson, as Tax Collector of Dade County, on the 7th day of August, 1933, to enforce the collection of the unpaid taxes levied by said District for the year 1932), in and to the following described land, lying and being in the County of Dade and State of Florida, to-wit: A One Hundred Foot Strip across East Half of Section Two, Township Fifty- four South, Range Forty East, Tallahassee Meridian, Fla. Also- East Half of the North-west Quarter of the North-east Quarter, East of the West line of the R/W in Section Twenty-three, Township Fifty-four South, Range Forty East, Tallahassee Meridian, Fla. 33Defendant asserts that the numbers, typewritten between the lines of the original 1937 tax deed and reproduced above, “appear to represent the tax certificates previously sold by the Tax Collector,” which plaintiffs have not challenged. 28 Also- A Strip as in Deed Book 410 at Page 85, in Section Twenty-three, Township Fifty-four South, Range Forty East, Tallahassee Meridian, Fla. Also- A Strip as in Deed Book 366 at Page 357, in Section Twenty-three, Township Fifty-four South, Range Forty East, Tallahassee Meridian, Fla. Also- F. E. C. R/y across South-west Quarter of the North-east Quarter of the North-east Quarter of Section Twenty-one, Township Fifty-five South, Range Forty East, Tallahassee Meridian, Fla.[34] This deed acknowledges receipt of Southern Drainage District taxes for the years of 1932, 1933, 1934, 1935, 1936 on the above named Lands. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the same, together with all and singular the appurtenances thereunto belonging or in anywise appertaining and all the estate, right, title, interest, and claim whatsoever of the said party of the first part, either in law or equity, to the only proper use, benefit, and behoof of the said party of the second part and his heirs and assigns forever. (capitalization in original; alteration and footnotes added). In their motions for reconsideration, the Castillo and Menendez plaintiffs argued “that the court committed ‘clear error’ resulting in ‘manifest injustice’ when the court concluded that both sets of plaintiffs do not own any of the land underlying the railroad corridor.” Castillo v. United States, 140 Fed. Cl. at 600. The Castillo and Menendez plaintiffs claimed that the chains of title they submitted in support of the motions for reconsideration “‘demonstrate that the Moss and Merwitzer families did not “clearly reserve title” to the land under the railroad right-of-way easement.’” Id. at 601. On October 30, 2018, this court issued an Opinion denying the Castillo and Menendez plaintiffs’ motions for reconsideration. The court identified three primary grounds for reconsideration: “‘(1) an intervening change in the controlling law; (2) the availability of 34 According to the parties’ filings in the above captioned cases, including the aerial maps submitted by the Castillo and Menendez plaintiffs before the remand, the Castillo, Menendez, Hernandez, and Lima plaintiffs currently before the court own property only in Section Two, Township Fifty-four South, Range Forty East. Only one description of land in the 1937 deed is found within the same Section Two as plaintiffs’ properties, which is the description of the “One Hundred Foot Strip across East Half of Section Two, Township Fifty-four South, Range Forty East, Tallahassee Meridian, Fla.” Moreover, the other Sections referred to in the 1937 deed are located miles away from the railroad corridor currently at issue, and the lands described in the 1937 deed other than the “One Hundred Foot Strip” in Section Two are not addressed in any other documents produced by plaintiffs or defendant during the motions for reconsideration, during the appeal to the Federal Circuit before the remand, or during the additional discovery period after the remand. Of the remaining four descriptions of land stated in the 1937 deed, three descriptions refer to lands in “Section Twenty-three, Township Fifty-four South, Range Forty East,” and one description refers to land in “Section Twenty-one, Township Fifty- five South, Range Forty East.” Accordingly, only the description of the “One Hundred Foot Strip” in Section Two is relevant to the issues before the court on remand. 29 new evidence; and (3) the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice.’” Id. at 599 (quoting Del. Valley Floral Grp., Inc. v. Shaw Rose Nets, LLC, 597 F.3d 1374, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (internal quotations omitted)). The court stated that “‘a motion for reconsideration should not be based on evidence that was readily available at the time the motion was heard.’” Id. at 600 (quoting Johnson v. United States, 127 Fed. Cl. 661, 664 (2016) (internal quotations omitted)). The court held that “the chains-of-title are public records and, therefore, were available to the Castillo and Menendez plaintiffs when they briefed the motions for summary judgment” and accordingly “should not have been left for a post-decision motion for reconsideration.” Id. The court also addressed the merits of the chains of title and determined that the language “less” and “East of,” used in the deeds in the chains of title with reference to the railroad corridor, indicated the deeds did not convey title to the railroad corridor. See id. at 601-02. The court further addressed the Castillo and Menendez plaintiffs’ argument, asserted for the first time in their motions for reconsideration, “that ‘[t]he description of the property conveyed in the Zena Garden [sic] and Princess Park Manor plats is rightly understood under Florida law and land title standards as a conveyance of the entire fee estate subject to the existing railroad easement.’” Id. at 602 (emphasis and alterations in original). The court explained that “‘a party may not raise an issue for the first time on reconsideration when the issue was available to be litigated,’” id. (quoting CANVS Corp. v. United States, 116 Fed. Cl. 294, 300 (2014)), and held that the “plaintiffs’ newly raised arguments that the excepting language in the Zena Gardens and Princess Park Manor plats means the subdivision is ‘subject to’ the railroad right-of-way” did not constitute “a basis for reconsideration of the court’s June 29, 2018 Opinion” granting partial summary judgment to defendant. See id. Additionally, the court addressed the Castillo plaintiffs’ argument “that the court ‘clearly erred when it granted summary judgment’ in favor of defendant regarding the portion of the railroad corridor obtained by condemnation because the government did not move for summary judgment as to this portion of the railroad corridor,” because, in Castillo, defendant had “moved for summary judgment as to the portion of the railroad corridor obtained through the Holman deed and not to the portion of the railroad corridor” composed of the four rights-of-way. Id. at 604.35 The court explained that “‘[a] court may . . . grant summary judgment in favor of the nonmoving party,’” id. (ellipsis in original; alteration added) (quoting U.S. Sur. Co. v. United States, 83 Fed. Cl. 306, 309-10 (2008)), and the court held that “[e]ven though defendant did not move for summary judgment as to the portion of the railroad corridor obtained through condemnation, the Castillo plaintiffs had adequate notice and opportunity to argue to the court as to why the subdivision plats did not preclude their takings claims.” Id. at 605 (alteration added). For these reasons, the court denied the Castillo and Menendez plaintiffs’ attempt to seek reconsideration on the basis of evidence not previously before the court prior to the issuance of its June 29, 2018 Opinion, see generally Castillo v. United States, 138 Fed. Cl. 707, in particular, as relevant to the above captioned cases, the subdivision chains of title produced by the Castillo and Menendez plaintiffs. Accordingly, the court denied the motions for reconsideration, because “the Castillo and Menendez plaintiffs have not presented this 35The Menendez plaintiffs did not make a similar argument with respect to the court’s grant of partial summary judgment to the government in Menendez. 30 court with any proper grounds to reconsider its June 29, 2018 Opinion or the July 2, 2018 judgments entered in Castillo and Menendez.” Castillo v. United States, 140 Fed. Cl. at 606 (capitalization in original). The plaintiffs in Castillo and Menendez appealed this court’s rulings on the prior cross-motions for partial summary judgment, see generally Castillo v. United States, 138 Fed. Cl. 707, to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. See generally Castillo v. United States, 952 F.3d 1311. The Federal Circuit on appeal paraphrased this court’s holding as having been “that the only reasonable finding on the evidence in this case was that the centerline presumption was overcome or was inapplicable.” Id. at 1315. On appeal, the Castillo and Menendez plaintiffs argued that the United States Court of Federal Claims had “misapplied the centerline presumption under Florida law” by “improperly interpret[ing] the Zena Gardens and Princess Park Manor plats as reserving a reversionary interest in the FEC right-of-way to the Merwitzers and Mosses, so that the subsequent deeds to the subdivision parcels at issue did not grant any ownership of land in the railroad corridor.” 36 Id. at 1319-20 (alteration added). “[I]n the absence of a contrary indication under Florida law,” the Federal Circuit “conclude[d] that the centerline presumption applies to railroad rights-of-way that serve as boundaries of a plot, including a plot within a subdivision,” a conclusion this court had also reached in its earlier Opinion. See id. at 1320 (alterations added). Applying the centerline presumption to the subdivision plats, the Federal Circuit reached the conclusion that the language of the Zena Gardens and Princess Park Manor plats is not sufficient to avoid the centerline presumption. See id. at 1322-23. The Federal Circuit on appeal relied on Bischoff v. Walker, 107 So. 3d 1165 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013), a decision from the Florida District Court of Appeal for the Fifth District, to determine that the “East of” language of the Princess Park Manor plat did not rebut the centerline presumption because it was “nearly identical to the plat language” “‘lying East of [the] Canal’” which the court in Bischoff held did not rebut the centerline presumption. Castillo v. United States, 952 F.3d at 1322 (alteration in original) (quoting Bischoff v. Walker, 107 So. 3d at 1166-68). The Federal Circuit further relied on Dean v. MOD Properties, Ltd., 528 So. 2d 432 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1988), also a decision from the Florida District Court of Appeal for the Fifth District, to determine that the “less” language of the Princess Park Manor plat and the “excepting” language of the Zena Gardens plat also did not rebut the centerline presumption, because the plat language was “‘relevantly similar to the language’” “‘less and except’” which did not rebut the centerline presumption in Dean.37 See Castillo v. United States, 952 F.3d at 1322 (quoting Dean v. MOD Props., 36 The Castillo and Menendez plaintiffs did “not challenge that aspect of the trial court’s ruling” concerning the Holman deed on appeal, and, therefore, that portion of this court’s previous Opinion on the cross-motions for partial summary judgment before appeal has not been disturbed. See Castillo v. United States, 952 F.3d at 1317 n.2. 37The Federal Circuit also addressed the reservation language included in the subdivision plats, but the Federal Circuit would only “assume, without deciding” that the plats rebutted the centerline presumption with respect to the reservation of “the ‘Streets, Avenues and Terrace’” in the Zena Gardens plat and of “the ‘Streets, Avenues, Roads, Terraces, Courts, and Alleys’” in the Princess Park Manor plat. See Castillo v. United States, 952 F.3d at 1323. The reservations, the Federal Circuit noted, omitted the railroad corridor, 31 Ltd., 528 So. 2d at 432-33). The Federal Circuit concluded that this court had “erroneously granted summary judgment in its original rulings” and that the subdivision plats did not “contain clear expressions of exclusion of the railroad corridor from the subdivisions whose parcels were to be conveyed to purchasers.” Id. at 1323. With respect to the chains of title first produced by the Castillo and Menendez plaintiffs in support of their motion for reconsideration, the Federal Circuit observed that “[a]t least some of the pre-platting property documents to which we have been pointed themselves use the FEC [Florida East Coast] right-of-way as a boundary.” Id. at 1324 (alterations added). The Federal Circuit, however, did not come to a conclusion with respect to the significance of the plaintiffs’ chains of title, stating: Interpreting such documents, like interpreting the [subdivision] plats themselves, requires use of the centerline presumption to the extent it applies. The trial court’s discussion of pre-platting issues in the reconsideration order may have been colored by an understanding of the presumption that we have determined to be incorrect in rejecting the trial court’s original summary-judgment ruling. Id. (footnote omitted). In a footnote appended to the above quoted material, the Federal Circuit also analyzed the 1937 deed which defendant had produced for the first time in opposition to the motions for reconsideration: Under the summary-judgment standard requiring evidence to be viewed favorably to the nonmoving party, see Dairyland Power Coop. v. United States, 16 F.3d 1197, 1202 (Fed. Cir. 1994), the 1937 deed indicates, at most, that the FEC [Florida East Coast] Railway fell behind on its drainage- tax payments owed to the District and that, to clear the debt, the FEC Railway paid the unpaid drainage taxes for 1932-1936 and received from the District, in return, the quitclaim deed reflecting the clearance and removal of the District’s tax lien. Under Florida law, the 1937 quitclaim deed conveyed only such “title or interest as possessed by the grantor [here, the Southern Drainage District] at the time of the making of the deed.” See Florida East Coast Ry. Co. v. Patterson, 593 So. 2d 575, 577 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992). Moreover, “the execution of a quitclaim deed, without more, does not necessarily import that the grantor possesses any interest at all and if the grantor has no interest in the land described at the time of the conveyance, the quitclaim conveys nothing to the grantee.” Miami Holding Corp. v. Matthews, 311 So. 2d 802, 803 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1975). The government has not presented evidence that the Southern Drainage District had ownership interests in the corridor land at the time of the quitclaim deed. Accordingly, the evidence does not support the government’s summary- judgment position that the FEC Railway acquired fee title through the 1937 quitclaim deed. which the Federal Circuit stated “confirms the absence of a reservation by the grantors as to the railroad corridor.” Id. 32 Castillo v. United States, 952 F.3d at 1324 n.6 (second alteration in original). The Federal Circuit “remand[ed] the case for further proceedings” only “with respect to the portions of the FEC [Florida East Coast] Railway right-of-way related to the condemnation orders,” “including any appropriate further development of the factual record,” including “such record development as is appropriate” on the issue of whether “the Merwitzers and Mosses did not own the corridor land now at issue when they filed their plats.” Id. at 1325 (alterations added). As described above, the Federal Circuit did not disturb this court’s holding with respect to the fee simple title conveyed by the Holman deed, which did not implicate the centerline presumption. The Federal Circuit stated that, in remanding the case, it would “not prejudge what conclusion may be justified on remand, whether or not the evidentiary record is supplemented.” Id. Following the remand of the Castillo and Menendez cases to this court, the case of Hernandez, et al., v. United States, Case No. 17-468L, in which the Hernandez and Lima plaintiffs were initially co-plaintiffs, was transferred to the undersigned. The parties proceeded to engage in additional discovery to supplement the evidentiary record “as is appropriate,” see Castillo v. United States, 952 F.3d at 1325, with respect to the question of whether the Merwitzers and Mosses owned the land at the time of the platting of the Princess Park Manor and Zena Gardens subdivisions that now constitutes the railroad corridor at issue. As noted above, the parties engaged in discovery with the exception of the Hernandez plaintiff Miriam Hernandez, who at the time of the remand was proceeding pro se, failed to appear at scheduled hearings, and did not participate actively in the additional discovery on remand, and the Alvarez plaintiff, who had agreed to wait while the remand was proceeding. During the additional discovery period after remand, defendant stated that it had “located two additional documents that confirm the nature of the 1937 tax deed,” and produced both documents for the first time. The first document defendant produced for the first time during the additional discovery period on remand is a quitclaim deed, executed July 16, 1938 by the Florida East Coast Railway and its receivers (the 1938 quitclaim deed). The 1938 quitclaim deed memorializes a conveyance from the Florida East Coast Railway to the Southern Drainage District. The 1938 quitclaim deed provides: THIS INDENTURE, Made this 16th day of July A. D. 1938, between FLORIDA EAST COAST RAILWAY COMPANY, a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Florida, party of the first part, William R. Kenan, Jr., and Scott M. Loftin as Receivers of the properties of said Florida East Coast Railway Company, and not individually, parties of the second part, and SOUTHERN DRAINAGE DISTRICT, a drainage district organized and existing under the laws of the State of Florida, party of the third part: WITNESSETH: That the said party of the first part, for and in consideration of the sum of One Dollar ($1.00) to it in hand paid by the said party of the third part, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, has granted, remised, released and quit-claimed, and by these presents doth grant, remise, release and quit-claim unto the said party of the third part, its successors and assigns 33 forever, all the right, title, interest, claim and demand which the said party of the first part hath in and to the following described lot, piece or parcel of land, situate, lying and being in the County of Dade and State of Florida, to wit: All that part of the East half of Section 2, Township 54 South, Range 40 East, except a strip of land one hundred feet wide used as right of way for Florida East Coast Railway, the center line of said one hundred foot strip being described as follows: Beginning at a point in the north line of Section 2, which is 1265 feet west of its Northeast corner and continuing thence southerly across the East half of said Section 2 to a point in the south line thereof which is 1353.1 feet west of the southeast corner of said Section. The land hereby quit-claimed not now being held or required for railroad purposes. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the same together with all and singular the appurtenances thereunto belonging or in anywise appertaining, and all the estate, right, title, interest and claim whatsoever of the said party of the first part, either in law or equity, to the only proper use, benefit and behoof of the said party of the third part, its successors and assigns forever. And the parties of the second part, as evidencing their consent, approval and authorization of the quit-claim and release of the above described property by the party of the first part to the party of the third part, join in the execution of this Indenture. (capitalization in original). The second document defendant produced for the first time during the additional discovery period on remand is an affidavit executed September 20, 1938 by the President and Secretary of the Southern Drainage District (the 1938 affidavit), who had previously been signatories to the 1937 deed. In the 1938 affidavit, the affiants swore: 1. On May 6, 1937, a tax deed was issued by the said SOUTHERN DRAINAGE DISTRICT to the FLORIDA EAST COAST RAILWAY COMPANY, wherein the said Drainage District quit-claimed its rights acquired by the purchase on August 7, 1933, for unpaid taxes levied by said Drainage District for the year 1932 in and to the following described land: A strip 100’ across East one-half (1/2) of Section 2, Township 54 South Range forty (40) East, Tallahassee Meridian, Florida (also other lands); 34 that the above described description of the property conveyed was an error in that the said SOUTHERN DRAINAGE DISTRICT intended to convey the following described land: A strip of land 100’ wide used as right-of-way for Florida East Coast Railway, passing across the East one-half (1/2) of Section 2, Township 54 South Range forty (40) East, Tallahassee Meridian, Florida; that the error occurred by reason of the fact that said quit-claim deed failed to state that said property deeded was the said right-of-way of the Florida East Coast Railway; 2. That on the 16th day of July, 1938, the said FLORIDA EAST COAST RAILWAY COMPANY, a Florida corporation, WILLIAM R. KENAN, JR. and SCOTT M. LOFTIN, as Receivers of the properties of the said FLORIDA EAST COAST RAILWAY COMPANY, did execute a quit-claim deed to the said SOUTHERN DRAINAGE DISTRICT, reconveying all of the property hereinabove described, save and except that which was intended to be deeded by the said original quit-claim deed heretofore mentioned; 3. That the said SOUTHERN DRAINAGE DISTRICT has no claim of title whatsoever against any part of the East half of Section 2, Township 54 South, Range 40 East, and that it makes this affidavit, by its said officers, for the purpose of clearing and quieting any cloud upon the title of the said land which may have been raised by the original deed made by it to the FLORIDA EAST COAST RAILWAY COMPANY or by the reconveyance by the said FLORIDA EAST COAST RAILWAY COMPANY to the said SOUTHERN DRAINAGE DISTRICT of all of said property, save and except that originally intended to have been deeded; and that the purpose of this affidavit is to permit the conveyance of all of said land heretofore clouded by said deeds, without the necessity of the making of several quit-claim deeds to the individual owners of the said land and by this affidavit the said SOUTHERN DRAINAGE DISTRICT does herewith estop itself from claiming any right, interest or title in and to the land lying in the East half of Section 2, Township 54, South, Range 40 East, other than its right to levy and collect taxes against said land in accordance with the statutes of the State of Florida, and to acquire further deeds of conveyance to said property for non-payment of Southern Drainage District taxes. (capitalization in original). The 1938 affidavit appears to have been intended by the affiants to clarify the 1937 and 1938 conveyances memorialized in the 1937 deed and 1938 quitclaim deed, respectively. Neither the 1938 quitclaim deed nor the 1938 affidavit indicate whether the interest “originally intended to have been deeded” in 1937 was fee simple title. The 1938 quitclaim deed and 1938 affidavit were the only new pieces of evidence produced during an extensive post remand discovery and then submitted by 35 defendant following the remand, which had not been before this court when this court’s earlier Opinions were issued, or before the Federal Circuit when it reviewed this court’s earlier rulings. Plaintiffs did not submit additional evidence during the post remand discovery period. After discovery on remand, defendant filed two motions for partial summary judgment38 pursuant to Rule 56(a) and (c) of the United States Court of Federal Claims (RCFC) (2021), first, with respect to the claims of the Castillo and Menendez plaintiffs, and second, with respect to the claims of the Hernandez and Lima plaintiffs, who at that time had not yet been severed and were proceeding as co-plaintiffs in Hernandez. In the first motion for partial summary judgment on remand, defendant moves for partial summary judgment with respect to the claims of the Castillo and Menendez plaintiffs arguing that defendant has rebutted the centerline presumption by demonstrating “that FECR [Florida East Coast Railway] acquired fee title from the 1937 tax deed to the subject railroad corridor,” as well as that the plaintiffs “have no property interest in that portion of the corridor” at issue. In the second motion, defendant moves for partial summary judgment with respect to the Hernandez and Lima plaintiffs, making identical arguments to those made in its motion for partial summary judgment in Castillo and Menendez, except that the defendant’s motion regarding the Hernandez and Lima plaintiffs is concerned only with the railroad corridor adjacent to Princess Park Manor, the subdivision in which plaintiffs Miriam Hernandez and Claro Lima own property. In support of its motions for partial summary judgment on remand, defendant argues that the 1937 deed, which defendant produced for the first time in opposition to plaintiffs’ motions for reconsideration, indicates that the Florida East Coast Railway “acquired fee simple title to the subject railroad corridor from Southern Drainage District,” and tries to rely on the 1938 quitclaim deed and 1938 affidavit, which defendant produced for the first time during the additional discovery period on remand, as well as a Florida statute, Chapter 12406 of the Florida Acts of 1927 (the 1927 Florida statute), to “confirm the nature of the 1937 tax deed.” After two rounds of supplemental briefing, defendant further identified Florida statutes enacted in 1917, 1929, and 1931, all concerning the Southern Drainage District, to try to further support its argument that the 1937 deed conveyed fee simple title to the Florida East Coast Railway. Defendant additionally argues that the Florida East Coast Railway’s fee simple ownership of the railroad corridor is evidenced by the deeds in the subdivision chains of title, which plaintiffs first produced in support of their motions for reconsideration, the language of which deeds defendant argues changed following the conveyance memorialized in the 1937 deed (1937 conveyance) to exclude the railroad corridor from conveyance. Accordingly, defendant argues that it “has rebutted the centerline presumption.” Of the evidence relied upon by 38Defendant styles its motions as motions for summary judgment, not for partial summary judgment. Because the sole issue before the court on remand is the application of the centerline presumption to plaintiffs’ claims, because the other issues of liability previously decided by this court’s earlier decisions were affirmed by the Federal Circuit, and also because damages are yet to be considered, the court refers to defendant’s motions as motions for partial summary judgment. 36 defendant to support its motions for partial summary judgment after the remand, the 1937 deed and the chains of title were previously submitted to this court at the time of the briefing of the earlier motions for reconsideration in Castillo and Menendez, and the 1938 quitclaim deed, 1938 affidavit, and 1917, 1927, 1929, and 1931 Florida statutes were produced for the first time during the additional discovery periods after the remand. The plaintiffs in Castillo, Menendez, Hernandez, and Lima did not produce additional documents during the additional extended discovery period after remand. Plaintiffs in Castillo and Menendez jointly filed a response to defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment on remand with respect to their claims and a cross-motion for partial summary judgment pursuant to RCFC 56(a) on the issue of the government’s liability. Then-Hernandez plaintiff, now Lima plaintiff, Claro Lima also filed a separate response to defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment in Hernandez and a cross-motion for partial summary judgment pursuant to RCFC 56(a) on the issue of the government’s liability.39 On May 19, 2021, after the severing of Claro Lima’s claims and the creation of the Lima case, Hernandez plaintiff Miriam Hernandez filed her own response to defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment in Hernandez and cross-moved for partial summary judgment pursuant to RCFC 56(a) on the issue of the government’s liability, making arguments consistent with those made by the Lima plaintiff. As a result of the severing of Miriam Hernandez and Claro Lima’s claims, plaintiffs in the above captioned cases filed a total of three cross-motions for partial summary judgment on remand: one from the Castillo and Menendez plaintiffs, one from the Hernandez plaintiff, and one from the Lima plaintiff. The Castillo and Menendez plaintiffs’ cross-motion, the Hernandez plaintiff’s cross-motion, and the Lima plaintiff’s cross-motion make similar, though not identical, arguments. All plaintiffs argue in their cross-motions on remand that the Federal Circuit on appeal held that neither the language of the subdivision plats nor the 1937 deed was proof that plaintiffs’ predecessors-in-interest did not own the land underlying the railroad corridor. The Castillo and Menendez plaintiffs argue that the 1938 quitclaim deed and 1938 affidavit “produced on remand do nothing to support a different outcome.” The Hernandez and Lima plaintiffs in their cross-motions for partial summary judgment similarly argue that on remand “[t]he government has put forth no evidence that rebuts” the centerline presumption. (alteration added). All plaintiffs in their cross-motions for partial summary judgment after remand argue that summary judgment must be entered in their favor with respect to liability on the basis of defendant’s failure to rebut the centerline presumption. All plaintiffs, therefore, argue that the court should deny the government’s motions and find that, because the centerline presumption has not been rebutted, the government is liable for taking plaintiffs’ land up to the centerline of the railroad corridor, and the court should “proceed to determine” the just compensation owed to the plaintiffs. In its combined responses to the plaintiffs’ cross-motions for partial summary judgment and replies in support of its own motions for partial summary judgment on 39As noted above, on April 16, 2021, the court severed the claims of Claro Lima and Miriam Hernandez and created two cases, Lima and Hernandez. 37 remand, defendant acknowledges that unless defendant shows that the Florida East Coast Railway obtained fee simple title to the railroad corridor in 1937, “the centerline presumption would likely allow Plaintiffs to be the presumed owners of a portion of the former railroad right-of-way.” (capitalization in original). Although defendant appears to acknowledge that its relied-upon evidence is unclear as to the nature of the 1937 conveyance, defendant argues that the court need not speculate as to what occurred almost ninety years ago. All material facts are known; there was a tax sale and a tax deed memorializing the sale was recorded. Under Florida law, as described in the United States’ motion, the 1937 tax deed is sufficient on its own to show that (1) the Southern Drainage District acquired title to the subject lands as a result of the tax sale and (2) the FECR [Florida East Coast Railway] acquired the fee simple estate to the disputed corridor through the deed. The 1938 affidavit and quitclaim deed further confirm that FECR acquired fee title to the entire 100’ strip of land that comprised the former railroad corridor. (alteration added). The Castillo, Menendez, Hernandez, and Lima plaintiffs argue in their replies40 in support of their cross-motions for partial summary judgment on remand that, “[w]hile the exact circumstances surrounding the execution of the 1937 quitclaim deed are unclear, the evidence available demonstrates that the unrecorded 1937 quitclaim deed was most likely a product of a bankrupt railroad’s failure to pay drainage taxes assessed on its right- of-way.” (alteration added). Although plaintiffs acknowledge the lack of clarity presented by the evidence in the record before the court on remand, plaintiffs argue that “even viewing the facts in a light most favorable to the government,” a phrase that appears to misstate the standard for a decision on a motion for summary judgment, the evidence presented by the government “cannot constitute proof of the railroad’s ownership of the fee estate in the land.” After an opportunity for extended discovery after remand, the parties’ cross-motions for partial summary judgment after remand have been fully briefed with multiple rounds of supplemental briefing to address issues identified by the court submitted as well. DISCUSSION As an initial matter, plaintiffs respond to defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment and argue that the mandate issued by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit when remanding Castillo and Menendez to this court “forecloses” the arguments with respect to rebutting the centerline presumption which defendant makes in its motions for partial summary judgment on remand, and plaintiffs argue that the issues raised by defendant “were already decided by the Federal Circuit.” Defendant responds to plaintiffs, arguing that plaintiffs mischaracterize the mandate issued by the Federal Circuit when remanding Castillo and Menendez to this court, and defendant argues that “[t]he Federal Circuit did not remand this case for judgment to be entered in favor of Plaintiffs,” but rather, “the Federal Circuit remanded to this Court for further consideration” 40Instead of filing a separate reply brief, the Hernandez plaintiff decided to adopt the reply brief filed by the Lima plaintiff as her own. 38 of whether the centerline presumption could be rebutted “with or without further development of the record.” (alteration added). Defendant characterizes the mandate as an “open-ended remand” which “plainly authorizes the Court to consider the additional evidence presented by the United States.” The Federal Circuit has explained that, when a lower court must interpret the mandate of an appeals court on remand, “both the letter and the spirit of the mandate must be considered,” and “[o]nly the issues actually decided—those within the scope of the judgment appealed from, minus those explicitly reserved or remanded by the court—are foreclosed from further consideration.” Engel Indus., Inc. v. Lockformer Co., 166 F.3d 1379, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (alteration added). While plaintiffs are correct that the Federal Circuit held “that, under Florida law, the centerline presumption applies to the railroad right-of-way context of the present case,” Castillo v. United States, 952 F.3d at 1321, and that the Federal Circuit determined that the Zena Gardens and the Princess Park Manor subdivision plats did not rebut the centerline presumption, see id. at 1322, the mandate of the Federal Circuit on remand does not prohibit defendant’s arguments in its motions for partial summary judgment. As discussed above, the Federal Circuit ordered “[f]urther proceedings, including such record development as is appropriate” and the Federal Circuit specifically did “not prejudge what conclusion may be justified on remand, whether or not the evidentiary record is supplemented.” Id. at 1325 (alteration added). Accordingly, the Federal Circuit did not “actually decide[]” whether the centerline presumption would be rebutted on remand. See Engel Indus., Inc. v. Lockformer Co., 166 F.3d at 1383 (alteration added). Rather, the Federal Circuit explicitly remanded the question of whether the centerline presumption would be rebutted, including, “as is appropriate,” with an expanded factual record, to this court after discovery. See Castillo v. United States, 952 F.3d at 1325. Moreover, while defendant tries to rely on the 1937 deed and subdivision chains of title, first produced following the court’s June 29, 2018 Opinion, see generally Castillo v. United States, 138 Fed. Cl. 707, defendant now also tries to rely on the 1938 quitclaim deed, the 1938 affidavit, discussed above, and the historical Florida statutes from 1917, 1927, 1929, and 1931, which were first identified by the defendant following remand and in supplemental briefing to the cross-motions on remand. As defendant’s arguments in its motions for partial summary judgment after the remand rely on additional evidence produced after remand, and defendant’s arguments focus on the ownership of the railroad corridor land prior to the platting of the subdivisions, the Federal Circuit’s mandate on remand does not preclude this court from addressing the arguments made in defendant’s motions for partial summary judgment after remand. Additionally, the court now re-considers the question of whether the evidence rebuts the centerline presumption, as a result of an expanded evidentiary record after the Federal Circuit’s remand of the above captioned cases, the subsequent additional discovery conducted by the parties after the remand as well as the supplemental briefing opportunities afforded to the parties. The conclusion reached in this court’s decision after the remand is the result of the evidentiary material produced on remand, as explained by the arguments offered in the parties’ cross-motions for partial summary judgment after remand and the supplemental briefs filed in support thereof, and are discussed below. RCFC 56 is similar to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in language and effect. Both rules provide that “[t]he court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled 39 to judgment as a matter of law.” RCFC 56(a); Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a) (2023) (alteration added); see also Young v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 575 U.S. 206, 231 (2015); Alabama v. North Carolina, 560 U.S. 330, 344 (2010); Hunt v. Cromartie, 526 U.S. 541, 549 (1999); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48 (1986); Anderson v. United States, 23 F.4th 1357, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2022); Shell Oil Co. v. United States, 7 F.4th 1165, 1171 (Fed. Cir. 2021); Authentic Apparel Grp., LLC v. United States, 989 F.3d 1008, 1014 (Fed. Cir. 2021); Biery v. United States, 753 F.3d 1279, 1286 (Fed. Cir.), reh’g and reh’g en banc denied (Fed. Cir. 2014); Ladd v. United States, 713 F.3d 648, 651 (Fed. Cir. 2013); Minkin v. Gibbons, P.C., 680 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Consol. Coal Co. v. United States, 615 F.3d 1378, 1380 (Fed. Cir.), reh’g and reh’g en banc denied (Fed. Cir. 2010), cert. denied, 564 U.S. 1004 (2011); 1st Home Liquidating Trust v. United States, 581 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Arko Exec. Servs., Inc. v. United States, 553 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Casitas Mun. Water Dist. v. United States, 543 F.3d 1276, 1283 (Fed. Cir. 2008), reh’g and reh’g en banc denied, 556 F.3d 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Moden v. United States, 404 F.3d 1335, 1342 (Fed. Cir.), reh’g and reh’g en banc denied (Fed. Cir. 2005); Am. Pelagic Fishing Co., L.P. v. United States, 379 F.3d 1363, 1370-71 (Fed. Cir.), reh’g en banc denied (Fed. Cir. 2004), cert. denied, 545 U.S. 1139 (2005); Capitol Indem. Corp. v. United States, 162 Fed. Cl. 388, 397 (2022); King v. United States, 159 Fed. Cl. 450, 461 (2022); Desert Sunlight 250, LLC v. United States, 157 Fed. Cl. 209, 222 (2021). A fact is material if it will make a difference in the result of a case under the governing law. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. at 248; see also Marriott Int’l Resorts, L.P. v. United States, 586 F.3d 962, 968 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. at 248); Mata v. United States, 114 Fed. Cl. at 744; Arranaga v. United States, 103 Fed. Cl. at 467-68; Thompson v. United States, 101 Fed. Cl. 416, 426 (2011); Cohen v. United States, 100 Fed. Cl. at 469. Irrelevant or unnecessary factual disputes do not preclude the entry of summary judgment. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. at 247-48; see also Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380 (2007); Monon Corp. v. Stoughton Trailers, Inc., 239 F.3d 1253, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2001); Gorski v. United States, 104 Fed. Cl. 605, 609 (2012); Walker v. United States, 79 Fed. Cl. 685, 692 (2008); Curtis v. United States, 144 Ct. Cl. 194, 199, 168 F. Supp. 213, 216 (1958), cert. denied, 361 U.S. 843 (1959), reh’g denied, 361 U.S. 941 (1960). When reaching a summary judgment determination, the judge’s function is not to weigh the evidence and determine the truth of the case presented, but to determine whether there is a genuine issue for trial. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. at 249; see, e.g., Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298, 332 (1995); BASF Corp. v. SNF Holding Co., 955 F.3d 958, 963 (Fed. Cir. 2020); TigerSwan, Inc. v. United States, 118 Fed. Cl. 447, 451 (2014); Dana R. Hodges Trust v. United States, 111 Fed. Cl. 452, 455 (2013); Cohen v. United States, 100 Fed. Cl. at 469-70; Boensel v. United States, 99 Fed. Cl. 607, 611 (2011); Macy Elevator, Inc. v. United States, 97 Fed. Cl. 708, 717 (2011); Dick Pacific/GHEMM, JV ex rel. W.A. Botting Co. v. United States, 87 Fed. Cl. 113, 126 (2009); Johnson v. United States, 49 Fed. Cl. 648, 651 (2001), aff’d, 52 F. App’x 507 (Fed. Cir. 2002), published at 317 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2003). The judge must determine whether the evidence presents a disagreement sufficient to require submission to fact finding, or 40 whether the issues presented are so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. at 250-52; Jay v. Sec’y of Dep’t of Health and Human Servs., 998 F.2d 979, 982 (Fed. Cir.), reh’g denied and en banc suggestion declined (Fed. Cir. 1993); Leggitte v. United States, 104 Fed. Cl. at 316. When the record could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party, there is no genuine issue for trial, and the motion must be granted. See, e.g., Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986); Marriott Int’l Resorts, L.P. v. United States, 586 F.3d at 968; 3rd Eye Surveillance, LLC v. United States, 151 Fed. Cl. 49, 54 (2020) (quoting Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. at 587); Pfizer Inc. v. United States, 149 Fed. Cl. 711, 715 (2020) (quoting Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. at 587). In such cases, there is no need for the parties to undertake the time and expense of a trial, and the moving party should prevail without further proceedings. Summary judgment, however, will not be granted “if the dispute about a material fact is ‘genuine,’ that is, if the evidence is such that a reasonable [trier of fact] could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. at 248; see also Long Island Sav. Bank, FSB v. United States, 503 F.3d 1234, 1244 (Fed. Cir.), reh’g and reh’g en banc denied (Fed. Cir. 2007), cert. denied, 555 U.S. 812 (2008); Eli Lilly & Co. v. Barr Lab’ys, Inc., 251 F.3d 955, 971 (Fed. Cir.), reh’g and reh’g en banc denied (Fed. Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1109 (2002); Gen. Elec. Co. v. Nintendo Co., 179 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 1999); TigerSwan, Inc. v. United States, 118 Fed. Cl. at 451; Stephan v. United States, 117 Fed. Cl. 68, 70 (2014); Gonzales-McCaulley Inv. Grp., Inc. v. United States, 101 Fed. Cl. 623, 629 (2011). In other words, if the nonmoving party produces sufficient evidence to raise a question as to t [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9376219. Public record. Not legal advice.