Alpine Pcs, Inc. v. United States
878 F.3d 1086
| Fed. Cir. | 2018Background
- In 1996 Alpine PCS won two 10‑year FCC PCS licenses and executed promissory notes and security agreements permitting installment payments and designating the licenses as collateral. Notes and security agreements were governed by the Communications Act and FCC rules.
- FCC regulations provided that installment nonpayment beyond specified grace periods would result in automatic license cancellation and debt collection; rules were amended in 1998 to provide two automatic 90‑day periods before cancellation.
- Alpine missed a 2002 payment, sought restructuring and a waiver of automatic cancellation, and the FCC ultimately denied relief (administrative denials finalized by the FCC in 2010); the D.C. Circuit summarily affirmed in 2010.
- Alpine pursued multiple proceedings (bankruptcy, FCC petitions, D.C. Circuit review, district court suit) and in 2016 sued the United States in the Court of Federal Claims asserting breach of contract and a Fifth Amendment takings claim.
- The Court of Federal Claims dismissed for lack of jurisdiction: contract claims because the Communications Act’s review scheme displaced Tucker Act jurisdiction, and the takings claim as untimely under the six‑year statute of limitations. This appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Alpine’s contract claims fall within the Communications Act §402(b) review scheme (displacing Tucker Act jurisdiction) | Alpine contends its claims are ordinary contract claims enforceable in the Court of Federal Claims and not a review of license revocation | Government contends the claims attack the FCC’s revocation/cancellation decision and thus fall within §402(b)(5) exclusive review in D.C. Circuit | Held: Contract claims fall within §402(b)(5); Communications Act displaces Tucker Act jurisdiction and D.C. Circuit has exclusive review |
| Whether Alpine’s takings claim is cognizable in the Court of Federal Claims (Tucker Act) or displaced by Communications Act remedies | Alpine argues its takings claim accrued only when FCC finally denied relief in 2010 and is proper in the Court of Federal Claims | Government argues the taking accrued earlier (2002–2008) and timeliness bars the 2016 suit; also that the Communications Act remedies are exclusive | Held: Tucker Act jurisdiction over the takings claim is displaced because the Communications Act provides a comprehensive remedial scheme (D.C. Circuit review and agency relief able to afford compensation) |
| Whether the D.C. Circuit is an inadequate forum because it lacks trial‑type factfinding for Alpine’s contract/takings allegations | Alpine argues the D.C. Circuit is ill‑equipped for discovery/trial and thus Tucker Act remains available | Government points to administrative remand and D.C. Circuit authority to develop record and order relief | Held: D.C. Circuit can address statutory and constitutional claims and may remand to FCC for further proceedings; adequacy objection rejected |
| Whether the Court of Federal Claims erred by considering displacement sua sponte rather than focusing on statute‑of‑limitations | Alpine stresses timeliness and accrual rules; government emphasizes statute of limitations | Court may address subject‑matter jurisdiction sua sponte; displacement dispositive here so no need to decide accrual/timeliness | Held: Court properly found displacement; no need to decide accrual/timeliness because Communications Act review precludes Tucker Act jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Bormes, 568 U.S. 6 (2012) (Tucker Act is a gap‑filler; Congress may displace it by a detailed remedial scheme)
- Horne v. Department of Agriculture, 569 U.S. 513 (2013) (a statutory scheme that provides a ready avenue to bring takings claims can displace Tucker Act jurisdiction)
- United States v. Fausto, 484 U.S. 439 (1988) (comprehensive statutory personnel review scheme displaces Tucker Act jurisdiction for certain claims)
- Soriano v. United States, 352 U.S. 270 (1957) (Tucker Act claim for compensation accrues at time of taking; availability of other remedies does not necessarily postpone accrual absent a statutory restriction)
- Folden v. United States, 379 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (Communications Act’s review scheme displaces Tucker Act jurisdiction for FCC orders subject to §402(b))
- Vereda, Ltda. v. United States, 271 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (when Congress creates a specific and comprehensive administrative/judicial review scheme, Tucker Act jurisdiction is preempted)