Twp. of Saddle Brook v. United States
| Decision Date | 16 March 2012 |
| Docket Number | No. 10-213C,10-213C |
| Parties | TOWNSHIP OF SADDLE BROOK, Plaintiff, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. Claims Court |
Contracts; subject matter jurisdiction, motion to dismiss, RCFC 12(b)(1); claim founded
upon an express or implied-in-fact contract with the United States, 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1)
(2006); impact of law-of-the-case doctrine on transferor court's determination that
jurisdiction lies in the United States Court of Federal Claims; transfer statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1631 (2006).
Deborah M. Gross-Quatrone, Saddle Brook, NJ, for plaintiff.
Devin A. Wolak, Washington, DC, with whom was Acting Assistant Attorney General Stuart F. Delery, for defendant. James G. Palmer, Assistant District Counsel, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New York District, of counsel.
This case is before the court on defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The issue for decision is whether plaintiff has alleged the existence of an implied-in-fact contract between a municipality and the New York District of the United States Army Corps of Engineers (the "Corps") whereby the Corps promised to undertake a flood-control project along the Saddle River. Argument is deemed unnecessary.
The following facts are undisputed.1 The Township of Saddle Brook ("plaintiff") is a municipality in northern New Jersey that is situated along the banks of the Saddle River and that has been plagued with regular flooding. The Corps has been aware of the flooding for decades, and, to minimize the destruction of property resulting from the recurrent flooding, it has designed and implemented flood-control projects to address the flooding.2 On January 28, 1986, the Secretary of the United States Army prepared a report entitled "Lower Saddle River Flood Control," which proposed a flood-control project on the Saddle River. See Def.'s Br. filed Sept. 23, 2011, at 6; Declaration of Daniel Falt, Dec. 1, 2009, ¶ 2. Pursuant to this proposal, Congress authorized the Lower Saddle River Project (the "project") on November 17, 1986, in section 401(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-662, § 401(a), 100 Stat. 4082 (current version at 33 U.S.C. §§ 2201-2311 (2006)). Falt Decl. ¶ 2. At the time the project was authorized, its projected cost was $36,500,000.00. Id. The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (the "NJDEP")—a nonfederal sponsor of the project—agreed to pay $10,700,000.00. Id.
A Project Management Plan (the "plan") created in August 1993 established a schedule whereby preconstruction engineering and design would take place from 1988 to 1996; land acquisition, contract preparation, and contract award, from 1996 to 1998; and construction, from 1998 to 2003. Id. ¶ 3. While the project was underway in the mid-1990s, the NJDEP determined that the project area was contaminated with hazardous waste. Id.. ¶ 4. Cleanup costs were estimated to be $28,000,000.00 to $36,000,000.00 and were to be borne by the State of New Jersey. Id. The project was put on hold between 1997 and 2003 while the state considered its options. Id.
In February 2005 the Corps and the NJDEP determined that the project must be reevaluated because project conditions had changed dramatically. Id.. ¶ 5. Although the reevaluation was expected to be completed in 2011, that deadline was extended; the reevaluation report will be subjected to peer review beginning in May 2012. See Def.'s Br.filed Sept. 23, 2011, at 7. If the reevaluation report concludes that the project's benefits will exceed its costs—inclusive of cleanup costs—the NJDEP will be asked to begin cleanup efforts. Falt Decl. ¶ 5. As of 2008 the project was expected to cost approximately $113,250,000.00—exclusive of cleanup costs—likely exceeding the mid-1990s estimate. Def.'s Br. filed Sept. 23, 2011, at 7 n.2. Neither Congress nor the New Jersey legislature has authorized full funding to cover these costs. Id.
On May 15, 2009, plaintiff filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against the United States, the Corps, the NJDEP, and 65 John Does, alleging negligence, breach, and bad faith for failure to control flooding along the Saddle River. See Compl. at 1, 4-7, Township of Saddle Brook v. United States, No. 2:09-cv-02373-JLL-CCC , ECF No. 1 (the "Transfer Compl."), Def.'s Br. filed Sept. 23, 2011, at App. A5, A8-11. On January 19, 2010, the district court entered an order dismissing plaintiff's negligence claim and transferring plaintiff's "contract claims"—which are identified as plaintiff's breach and bad-faith claims against the United States—to the United States Court of Federal Claims. See Order at 5, Township of Saddle Brook v. United States, No. 2:09-cv-02373-JLL-CCC (D.N.J. Jan. 19, 2010) (the "Transfer Order"), Def.'s Br. filed Sept. 23, 2011, at App. A17. The matter was transferred on April 7, 2010, but it was dismissed without prejudice on June 22, 2010, after plaintiff's counsel failed to show cause as to why he had not sought admission to the bar of the Court of Federal Claims. See Order entered June 10, 2010. Judgment entered on June 22, 2010.
Because plaintiff subsequently obtained new counsel who completed the admissions process in April 2011, the order of dismissal was vacated on May 23, 2011. Plaintiff filed its Amended Complaint in the Court of Federal Claims on July 18, 2011. This complaint is identical in all material respects to plaintiff's district-court complaint, except that it omits a claim for negligence and no longer names the NJDEP and John Does as defendants. See Am. Compl. filed July 18, 2011. Plaintiff's pending complaint alleges that, following Tropical Storm Floyd in 1999, the flooding worsened, creating a "deplorable situation" for plaintiff, which has incurred millions of dollars of losses. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 4, 6.3 Plaintiff further contends that the United States exercises exclusive control and management over the Saddle River and that the Corps makes all decisions relating to maintenance and repair of the river. Id. ¶ 2. Specifically, plaintiff alleges that the Corps "made numerous promises to remedy the flooding issues of the Saddle River," id. ¶ 12, and "entered into an agreement[with plaintiff] to remedy the flooding issues of the Saddle River Basin," id. ¶ 17. Plaintiff relies on the alleged promises and alleged agreement to invoke the court's jurisdiction and seeks an order of specific performance ordering the Corps to undertake necessary repairs to the Saddle River Basin; civil penalties for past flood damage; and court costs and attorneys' fees. See id. ¶¶ 23-25.
On September 23, 2011, defendant moved to dismiss pursuant to RCFC 12(b)(1), contesting jurisdiction over plaintiff's claims. Plaintiff responded on December 20, 2011, and defendant replied on January 6, 2012.
Jurisdiction must be established before the court may proceed to the merits of a case. Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env't, 523 U.S. 83, 88-89 (1998). Federal courts are presumed to lack subject matter jurisdiction unless it is affirmatively indicated by the record; therefore, it is the plaintiff's responsibility to allege facts sufficient to establish the court's subject matter jurisdiction. Renne v. Geary, 501 U.S. 312, 316 (1991); DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. United States, 442 F.3d 1313, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (). If the jurisdictional facts alleged in the complaint are disputed, "the . . . court may consider relevant evidence in order to resolve the factual dispute." Reynolds v. Army & Air Force Exch. Serv., 846 F.2d 746, 747 (Fed. Cir. 1988); see Moyer v. United States, 190 F.3d 1314, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ().
Once the court's subject matter jurisdiction is questioned, it is Reynolds, 846 F.2d at 748 (citation omitted); accord M. Maropakis Carpentry, Inc. v. United States, 609 F.3d 1323, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2010). However, when a federal court hears a jurisdictional challenge, "its task is necessarily a limited one." Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974), abrogated on other grounds by Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982). "The issue is not whether a plaintiff will ultimately prevail but whether the claimant is entitled to offer evidence to support the claims." Id.
Defining the jurisdictional reach of the Court of Federal Claims, the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1) (2006), "confers jurisdiction upon the Court of Federal Claims over the specified categories of actions brought against the United States, and . . . waives the Government's sovereign immunity for those actions." Fisher v. United States, 402 F.3d 1167, 1172 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). The Court of Federal Claims has "jurisdiction to render judgment upon any claim against the United States founded . . . upon any express or implied contract with the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1); see also Trauma Serv. Group v. United States, 104 F.3d 1321, 1324-25 (Fed. Cir. 1997) .
Fisher is a seminal case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit sought to clarify Tucker Act...
To continue reading
Request your trial