Anselma Crossing, L.P. v. United States Postal Service
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 3767
| 3rd Cir. | 2011Background
- Anselma Crossing, L.P. sues USPS in Pennsylvania for breach of contract and promissory estoppel related to an alleged March 2007 lease agreement not reduced to writing.
- Anselma allegedly relied on USPS representations that it would select Anselma as a USPS site and would lease the building Anselma would construct.
- USPS decided in late 2008 to rescind all formerly approved new projects, affecting about 400 projects including Anselma.
- Anselma incurred substantial engineering, professional, and environmental costs to construct a building meeting USPS requirements.
- Complaint filed November 2009 (amended February 2010) seeking about $150,000 in damages; district court dismissed under the Contract Disputes Act framework.
- Third Circuit reviews the district court’s lack of subject matter jurisdiction de novo, with fact-finding reviewed for clear error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the CDA bar district court jurisdiction over USPS breach-of-contract claims? | Anselma argues §409(a) grants district court jurisdiction; CDA does not bar. | USPS argues CDA preempts and confines contract disputes to CDA forums. | Yes; CDA bars district court jurisdiction. |
| Does §409(a) provide an independent jurisdictional grant despite CDA? | Licata suggests §409(a) provides district court jurisdiction for USPS matters. | CDA supersedes §409(a) as a more precise, later-created bar. | CDA overrides §409(a) jurisdiction. |
| Can the USPS remain subject to the CDA via PRA and 410(a) regulation despite definitional changes? | §410(a) argued USPS opted out of CDA; CDA should not apply. | USPS can adopt the CDA via its regulations, keeping it applicable. | CDA applies to USPS via 39 C.F.R. § 601.109. |
| Is the CDA a specifically tailored statute that preempts the PRA's general grant of district court jurisdiction? | General grant should prevail unless explicitly overridden by a specific statute. | CDA is a specific, detailed framework that preempts general jurisdiction. | Yes; CDA preempts district court jurisdiction over USPS contract claims. |
Key Cases Cited
- Licata v. U.S. Postal Service, 33 F.3d 259 (3d Cir. 1994) (distinguishes §409(a) jurisdiction from §401(1) waiver)
- Flamingo Indus. (USA) Ltd. v. U.S. Postal Serv., 540 U.S. 736 (U.S. 2004) (two-step test for waiver and substantive liability; not directly controlling here)
- Goodin v. U.S. Postal Inspection Serv., 444 F.3d 998 (8th Cir. 2006) (CDA preempts general remedies; some contracts exempted)
- In re Phila. Newspapers, LLC, 599 F.3d 298 (3d Cir. 2010) (statutory construction; specific provision prevails over general)
- FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471 (U.S. 1994) (sovereign immunity and jurisdictional questions)