EAST PALESTINE — The five residents appealing the final approval of last year’s $600 million settlement between the Norfolk Southern and households impacted by the 2023 train derailment, continue to fight for a reduction or complete elimination of the $850,000 appeal bond they were ordered to pay.

In the most recent brief filed in Cincinnati’s Ohio Sixth Circuit of Appeals, David Graham — the attorney representing Rev. Joseph Sheely, Zsuzsa Troyan, Tamara Freeze, Sharon Lynch, and Carly Tunno — asked the court for oral arguments and to consider several issues. Chief among them is whether the correct components were used to determine the nearly a million dollar bond.

The $850,000 bond was ordered by U.S. District Judge Bentia Pearson in January with each of the appealing residents responsible for $170,000. Pearson agreed with the lead co-counsel’s claim that the appeal would lead to both $25,000 in related printing costs for them and $825,000 in additional administrative fees to be billed by Kroll — the since-removed settlement administrator that was replaced due to overpaying claims by miscalculating the court-approved allocation system.

Graham argues that both figures are excessive.

“Given absolutely no legitimate basis for positing that class plaintiffs’ appellate counsel will incur $25,000 in taxable costs, Judge Pearson abused her discretion including that amount in her calculation of an appeal bond,” he wrote.

Graham said that most if not all appeal documents would be electronic and even if they weren’t pointed out that “FedEx Office, a national chain, charges 20 cents per page for bulk orders, so $25,000 represents almost 125,000 pages and upon entry of final judgment, the electronic record consisted of only 14,586 pages, so copying every page at FedEx Office (to no useful purpose) would only cost $2,917.20.”

As for the additional $825,000 Kroll estimated they would bill due to the appeal process, Graham wrote that “no statute cited by class counsel or Judge Pearson — whether federal or Ohio — authorizes class plaintiffs, as appellees, to recover anything like ‘administrative costs’ relating to appeal.”

“The $825,000 figure is just another number plucked out of thin air by a claims administrator that was ultimately removed for cause by the district court,” Graham added.

Graham also asked the appeal court to consider whether the district court abused its discretion by disregarding the Sixth Circuit’s March 21 order “expressly providing that appellants had time to move for an extension of time to appeal the setting of the bond.”

The March 21 order by the Sixth Circuit Court ruled against a motion that did not ask for a review of reduction in the appeal bond but rather a stay of Pearson’s bond order. Graham admitted mistakenly submitting the motion as a stay by accidentally choosing the wrong dropdown box when filing the motions electronically. That error left the Sixth Circuit’s panel with no choice but to rule on the motion as a stay which was denied but not before adding that the appealing residents “could still obtain review of the bond order by filing a direct appeal from that order.” Graham then filed a motion with Pearson for an extension (as the deadline to ask for a reduction bond had expired) but Pearson denied that on March 30.

Graham insists Pearon’s refusal to grant an extension effectively disregarded the appeals court determination that a motion to review the bond was possible.

“Few principles are as indisputable as that lower courts must conform their judgments to the directions and precedents of higher courts,” he argued.

Pearson, Graham wrote, was bound by the “Sixth Circuit’s clear declaration.”

The document also asked the appeal court to consider whether “on remand, this case should be reassigned to a different judge.”

Graham accuses Pearson of “attempting to usurp an appellate court’s right to determine an appellant’s standing, being offended that the appellants have the temerity to appeal her rulings, attempting to impede appellants’ exercise of their statutory right of appeal, having ex parte communications with class counsel and of grossly unfair treatment.”

In his conclusion, Graham asks that the denial of the time extension be reversed, the order imposing an appeal bond vacated and if needed, the case reassigned from Pearson.