Dico, Inc. v. U.S., 93-5124

• Decision Date: 24 February 1995
• Docket Number: No. 93-5124,93-5124
• Citation: 48 F.3d 1199
• Parties: , 25 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,979 DICO, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Federal Circuit

Page 1199

48 F.3d 1199

40 ERC 1346, 25 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,979

DICO, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 93-5124.

United States Court of Appeals Federal Circuit.

Feb. 24, 1995.

Charles F. Lettow, Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen & Hamilton, Washington, DC, argued, for plaintiff-appellant. With him on the brief were Michael R. Lazerwitz and Michael A. Mazzuchi.

Robert L. Klarquist, Atty., Environment & Nat. Res. Div., Dept. of Justice, Washington, DC, argued, for defendant-appellee. With him on the brief were Peter R. Steenland, Jr., Acting Asst. Atty. Gen., Environment & Nat. Res. Div., Jacques B. Gelin and Marc A. Smith.

Before RICH, PLAGER and LOURIE, Circuit Judges.

PLAGER, Circuit Judge.

Appellant Dico, Inc. ("Dico") pled in the United States Court of Federal Claims ¹ a cause of action under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, seeking compensation for certain expenses Dico incurred pursuant to an environmental cleanup order issued by the United States Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA"). At the time Dico filed suit in the Court of Federal Claims, it had pending a District Court action. In that action, Dico sought reimbursement for those same expenses under Sec. 106(b) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act ("CERCLA"), codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. Sec. 9606(b) (1988). ² The Court of Federal Claims, on motion by the Government, held that it lacked jurisdiction over Dico's action under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1500, and dismissed the action without prejudice. We affirm.

BACKGROUND

Pursuant to its authority under CERCLA, EPA ordered Dico to undertake certain measures to clean up contaminated groundwater at a site in which Dico operated a manufacturing facility. Although it informed EPA that certain contamination had originated with sources other than Dico, Dico undertook at its expense the cleanup as ordered, which included installing groundwater extraction and monitoring wells and related equipment and treating the extracted water. Dico also purchased and obtained access to third party property to carry out the groundwater treatment. During the operation of this system, Dico concluded that contamination from a separate source north of its facility ("the northern plume") was being induced toward and captured by its system, and that Dico therefore was providing a cleanup remedy for contamination for which it was not liable under CERCLA. See 42 U.S.C. Sec. 9607(b) (no liability when release or threat of release of hazardous substance and resulting damage are caused solely by act or omission of independent third party).

Dico therefore filed with EPA a claim for reimbursement of the portion of its cleanup costs attributable to the northern plume. See 42 U.S.C. Sec. 9606(b)(2)(A), (C) & Sec. 9606 note. EPA denied the claim on the ground that Dico was ineligible to seek reimbursement because EPA's Order had been issued before the enactment of the reimbursement provisions.

Dico then filed, as permitted under CERCLA, an action in the District Court for the Southern District of Iowa. 42 U.S.C. Sec. 9606(b)(2)(B). In its complaint to the District Court, Dico prayed for reimbursement from the Government of "$764,134.08 in response costs related to the northern plume and such additional costs related to the northern plume as Dico has incurred or may incur ... [to] the date of judgment," as well as a declaration that the Government was obliged under Sec. 106(b) to reimburse Dico for future response costs. In addition, Dico sought a declaration that, "to the extent reimbursement for past and future response costs is not available under Section 106(b)," the Government was obliged to reimburse Dico under the Fifth Amendment's Due Process and Takings Clauses. ³

Shortly after Dico filed its complaint in the District Court, it filed a complaint in the Court of Federal Claims. ⁴ The portions of the complaint setting forth the underlying facts concerning the cleanup and northern plume were in all material respects identical to those of Dico's District Court complaint. The complaint then set forth two counts, one asserting entitlement to relief under the Due Process clause of the Constitution, and one under the Takings clause. The complaint closed with a prayer for reimbursement of "$764,134.08 in response costs related to the northern plume and such additional costs related to the northern plume as Dico has incurred or may incur ... [to] the date of judgment." Dico also included a prayer that the court declare that the Government was obliged under the Fifth Amendment to reimburse Dico for future response costs related to the northern plume.

The Government moved to dismiss the complaint on the basis of 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1500, which provides that

The United States Court of Federal Claims shall not have jurisdiction of any claim for or in respect to which the plaintiff or his assignee has pending in any other court any suit or process against the United States....

At the time the Court of Federal Claims considered the Government's motion, the court had before it our in banc decision in UNR Indus., Inc. v. United States, 962 F.2d 1013 (Fed.Cir.1992) (in banc ). The Supreme Court had not yet handed down its review of UNR, Keene Corp. v. United States, --- U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. 2035, 124 L.Ed.2d 118 (1993), nor had we yet issued our clarification of the scope of Sec. 1500 in Loveladies Harbor, Inc. v. United States, 27 F.3d 1545 (Fed.Cir.1994) (in banc ).

On the basis of the caselaw before it, the Court of Federal Claims granted the motion to dismiss, without prejudice. The court found that the two actions undisputedly arose out of the same operative facts, as defined in Johns-Manville Corp. v. United States, 855 F.2d 1556 (Fed.Cir.1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1066, 109 S.Ct. 1342, 103 L.Ed.2d 811 (1989), and concluded that under UNR, the later-filed suit in the Court of Federal Claims was barred.

Dico appealed to this court. Between the time of the Court of Federal Claims' judgment and opinion, and oral argument in this court, both Keene and Loveladies were decided. Dico argues here, first, that these cases changed the law of Sec. 1500 as it was applied by the Court of Federal Claims, and, second, that as a result Dico escapes the clutches of Sec. 1500. Dico is correct on the first point, but not the second.

DISCUSSION

Dico argues that it pursued different relief in the Court of Federal Claims than it did in the District Court. The Court of Federal Claims rejected the premise that seeking different relief precluded the operation of Sec. 1500. The court found that our decision in UNR had purported to overrule the line of cases, exemplified by Casman v. United States, 135 Ct.Cl. 647 (1956), establishing that premise. Our decision in Loveladies, however, made it clear that Casman is still good law and that different relief means different claims, which in turn means that Sec. 1500 does not apply. Accordingly, Dico is correct that if it had sought different relief in its two actions, dismissal of the Court of Federal Claims suit under Sec. 1500 would have been improper.

Dico, however, did not pursue different relief in its two actions. Dico argues that its District Court action sought reimbursement under CERCLA of monies expended pursuant to EPA order and for which Dico was not actually liable, while its Court of Federal Claims action sought money damages for the deprivation of its property rights. In its briefs, and again at oral argument, Dico identified this distinction as the difference between money damages and statutory reimbursement, the latter of which Dico characterizes as "monetary relief."

Dico cites as authority for this distinction Bowen v. Massachusetts, 487 U.S. 879, 108 S.Ct. 2722, 101 L.Ed.2d 749 (1988). In that case, the Supreme Court upheld the jurisdiction of a district court under Section 702 of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. Sec. 702, over a state's suit against the federal government seeking to overturn the disallowance of reimbursement for certain expenditures under the state's Medicaid program. The Government had argued that the suit was one for money damages in excess of $10,000 and thus, under the Tucker Act, the exclusive forum was the Court of Federal Claims. See id. at 890 & n. 14, 108 S.Ct. at 2730 & n. 14.

The funding scheme at issue involved advanced quarterly payments by the federal government to the state to help fund its Medicaid program. The state sought to prevent the federal government from excluding the expenditures at issue from future reimbursement and from adjusting subsequent grants to recover federal monies already spent on such expenditures. Given the prospective nature of the relief sought and the "intricate, ongoing relationships" between the state and federal governments "involv[ing] constantly shifting balance sheets," the Court distinguished the "monetary aspects of the relief" sought by the state from traditional "money damages" compensating a past loss. Bowen, 487 U.S. at 893, 900-01 n. 31, 904 n. 39, 905-06 & n. 42, 108 S.Ct. at 2731, 2735 n. 31, 2737 n. 39, 2737-38 & n. 42.

Whatever may be the precedential scope of the Bowen Court's distinction in the statutory law of federal entitlement programs administered through advanced payment streams, see 487 U.S. at 917-20, 108 S.Ct. at 2744-45 (Scalia, J., dissenting) ("monetary relief" sought is simply past due sums which compensate for loss resulting from breach of promise to pay, i.e., traditional damages), that distinction has no relevance here. Dico primarily seeks compensation for losses already incurred, and not the type of prospective relief at issue in Bowen. Nor does Dico's prayer for a declaration of entitlement to future response costs make the case analogous to the claims at issue in Bowen (even assuming that such declaratory relief is available under CERCLA's reimbursement scheme). The statute provides payment...