SFPP, L.P. v. Union Pacific Railroad

MEMORANDUM *

SFPP’s allegations that Union Pacific violated the Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2002, 49 U.S.C. §§ 60101-60137 , and the Constitution are not frivolous; we have subject matter jurisdiction. See Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 682-83 , 66 S.Ct. 773 , 90 L.Ed. 939 (1946). SFPP’s fourth claim alleging that Union Pacific’s demand is an unconstitutional taking is ripe “[t]o the extent that [SFPP] argues that [Union Pacific’s demand] is a facial taking because it is not sufficiently related to legitimate state interests.” San Remo Hotel v. City and County of San Francisco, 145 F.3d 1095, 1102 (9th Cir.1998).

However, SFPP fails to state any claim upon which relief can be granted. Fed. R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). In order to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, sufficient facts must be pleaded “to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, — U.S. -, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1974 , 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). We construe SFPP’s complaint in the light most…