Summary
This Federal Circuit opinion affirms the dismissal of a Fifth Amendment takings claim brought by landowners against the United States for failure to provide agricultural drainage. The court held that the Court of Federal Claims did not abuse its discretion in revisiting subject matter jurisdiction under the law-of-the-case doctrine, as the six-year statute of limitations under 28 U.S.C. § 2501 had expired. Additionally, the court found that the stabilization doctrine did not apply to postpone accrual, as the alleged harm was regular and foreseeable long before the filing date. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the law‑of‑the‑case doctrine bars the Court of Federal Claims from revisiting its prior jurisdictional decision
- Whether the stabilization doctrine applies to the plaintiffs’ takings claim and whether the claim accrued before the statutory limitations date
Holdings
- The law‑of‑the‑case doctrine does not prevent the Court of Federal Claims from sua sponte revisiting subject‑matter jurisdiction; the dismissal is affirmed.
- The stabilization doctrine does not apply; the takings claim accrued before September 2, 2005 and is therefore time‑barred, so the dismissal is affirmed.
Key quotations
“The law-of-the-case doctrine “posits that when a court decides upon a rule of law, that decision should continue to govern the same issues in subsequent stages in the same case.”” (700)
“The stabilization doctrine does not apply to Appellants’ claim. The provision of irrigation water was regular, consistent, and recurring, and not a slow, gradual physical process that may (or may not) eventually lead to a taking.” (714)
Factual background
Congress enacted the 1960 San Luis Act promising drainage for the San Luis Unit. The Bureau of Reclamation began construction in 1968 but never completed the drain, leaving plaintiffs' Westlands farmland without drainage. Plaintiffs alleged that the resulting rise in groundwater and salinity constituted a taking of flowage and seepage easements. The claim was filed in 2011.
Procedural history
The Court of Federal Claims dismissed the takings claim sua sponte for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, holding the stabilization doctrine did not apply and the claim was time‑barred. The appellants appealed to the Federal Circuit.