ARRA Energy Co. I v. United States
2011 U.S. Claims LEXIS 13
| Fed. Cl. | 2011Background
- Plaintiffs seek over $2.3 million in damages for denial of Recovery Act §1603 reimbursement grants for 25 mobile solar power systems placed in service in 2009.
- Counts I and II allege, respectively, money-mandating recovery under §1603 and breach of an offer/implicit contract arising from §1603 as a unilateral-contract offer.
- Treasury denied grants December 4, 2009, after reviewing cost-basis documentation and finding insufficient support for claimed basis.
- Plaintiffs filed suit February 12, 2010; defendant moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim.
- Court held jurisdiction exists over both counts, but Count II is dismissal-with-prejudice for failure to state a claim under RCFC 12(b)(6).
- Procedural posture: motion denied as to Count I, granted as to Count II; dismissal orders to follow.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is §1603 money-mandating under the Tucker Act | §1603 mandates payment; no discretion to deny grants when requirements are met. | Bowen limits jurisdiction; §1603 lacks express damages remedy and thus is not money-mandating. | Yes; §1603 is money-mandating and not barred by Bowen. |
| Does Tucker Act jurisdiction extend to Count II contract claim | Count II arises from an express/implied contract; Tucker Act permits such claims. | Rick's Mushroom restricts contract claims lacking money-mandating basis or express damages clause. | Yes; Court has jurisdiction over Count II. |
| Does Count II state an implied-in-fact contract claim | Section 1603 and conduct can form an implied-in-fact contract. | No unambiguous offer or mutual intent to contract; statute is not a contract. | No; Count II fails to state a claim under RCFC 12(b)(6). |
Key Cases Cited
- Bowen v. Massachusetts, 487 U.S. 879 (1988) (three-part APA analysis; not money damages when other remedies exist)
- Rick's Mushroom Serv., Inc. v. United States, 521 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (contract claims require money-mandating basis or CDA coverage)
- Samish Indian Nation v. United States, 419 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (discretionary schemes may be money mandating if standards/amounts compel payment)
- Greenlee County, Ariz. v. United States, 487 F.3d 871 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (money-mandating status despite ministerial determinations)
- Grav v. United States, 886 F.2d 1305 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (Grav II; money-mandating where statute requires payment to qualified recipients)
- Hanlin v. United States, 316 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (implied contract inquiry and government intent considerations)
- Trauma Serv. Grp. v. United States, 104 F.3d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (jurisdictional reach of Tucker Act over contract claims)