3b's Land & Gravel v. United States
14-738
| Fed. Cl. | Apr 28, 2017Background
- 3B’s Land & Gravel (3B’s) bought a 110-acre property (Mt. Solo) in 2005 that was subject to multiple BPA easements covering ~65 acres for high-voltage lines and towers.
- In 2006 3B’s began mining preparations, but MSHA issued a stop-work order an hour after work began due to BPA safety concerns; BPA later upgraded a tower and the stop order was lifted.
- BPA installed locks on access gates in 2006, and in September 2010 recorded a notice of encroachment alleging 3B’s disturbed easement areas and requiring cessation until corrective plans were approved.
- BPA opposed 3B’s proposed mining and sale activities during 3B’s 2012–2013 Chapter 11 bankruptcy; 3B’s confirmed a reorganization plan in March 2013 that contemplated mining.
- 3B’s sued in district court in 2012 (later W.D. Wash.), asserting takings and quiet-title claims; that action was dismissed in 2014 on judicial estoppel grounds because 3B’s had not scheduled those contingent claims in bankruptcy.
- 3B’s filed the present takings suit in the Court of Federal Claims in August 2014; the government moved to dismiss under RCFC 12(b)(6) arguing res judicata, statute of limitations, proprietary action, and judicial estoppel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether prior district-court dismissal bars relitigation (res judicata) | The district court didn’t reach the merits and lacked jurisdiction over the takings claim | Dismissal was a final judgment on the merits (judicial estoppel) and bars relitigation | Court: barred by res judicata; prior dismissal was a final judgment on the merits |
| Whether gate locks (2006) constitute a timely physical taking | Locks constituted a physical taking actionable here | Claim accrued in 2006; outside §2501 six-year limitations | Court: physical-taking claim accrued in 2006 and is time‑barred by six‑year statute of limitations |
| Whether notice of encroachment and bankruptcy filings are compensable takings | These actions effectively deprived 3B’s use and value of property | BPA acted in a proprietary capacity as an adjoining landowner protecting its easement rights | Court: proprietary actions; not compensable takings; quiet-title-type dispute better suited to district courts |
| Whether any remaining claims survive Rule 12(b)(6) review | Claims state a plausible takings theory | Even if not precluded by res judicata or limitations, claims fail on merits/jurisdiction grounds | Court: no viable scenario entitling 3B’s to relief; dismissal under RCFC 12(b)(6) granted |
Key Cases Cited
- Jet, Inc. v. Sewage Aeration Sys., 223 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (elements of res judicata for claim preclusion)
- Ingrum v. United States, 560 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (accrual rule for Tucker Act claims)
- Alliance of Descendants of Tex. Land Grants v. United States, 37 F.3d 1478 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (accrual and claim‑accrual principles)
- Copelan v. Techtronics Indus. Co., Ltd., 95 F. Supp. 3d 1230 (S.D. Cal. 2015) (judicial estoppel as affirmative defense considered on 12(b)(6))
- A&D Auto Sales, Inc. v. United States, 748 F.3d 1142 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (treating documents integral to the complaint on a 12(b)(6) motion)