Banks v. United States
99 Fed. Cl. 622
Fed. Cl.2011Background
- This case involved a trial of damages in April 2011 stemming from alleged erosion damage caused by 15 jetties along Lake Michigan’s eastern coastline.
- Defendant moved to dismiss on the ground that plaintiffs’ claims were time-barred under the six-year limitations period for actions against the United States.
- Courts previously held that accrual could occur at different times, notably 1903 (jetty length), 1958 (harbor structures erosion acknowledgment), 1989 (steel encasement), 1995, and 2000 based on Corps mitigation reports.
- The court later found, after trial, that the jetties were impermeable to sand even before encasement in steel, affecting liability and potential accrual considerations.
- The court sua sponte raised jurisdictional questions about accrual timing and the impact on subject-matter jurisdiction, inviting briefing on two specific issues.
- The court scheduled opening briefs by September 7, 2011, and responsive briefs by September 21, 2011, addressing these jurisdictional questions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| When did plaintiffs’ claims accrue? | Banks: accrual tied to permanent erosion impact or later uncertainty due to mitigation. | United States: accrual by 1989 or earlier based on steel encasement and fixed erosion effects. | Questions reserved; briefing anticipated to determine accrual date and jurisdiction. |
| Does the court have subject-matter jurisdiction given accrual timing? | Banks contend jurisdiction remains if accrual occurs within six-year window under governing law. | United States contends accrual outside six-year window defeats jurisdiction. | Questions reserved; briefing anticipated to determine jurisdictional viability. |
| Is the Federal Circuit’s law-of-the-case approach to accrual binding here? | Banks argues prior Federal Circuit accrual ruling may be revisited under law-of-the-case exceptions. | United States urges adherence to the law-of-the-case doctrine. | Questions reserved; briefing anticipated to address potential departures from law-of-the-case. |
Key Cases Cited
- Banks v. United States, 314 F.3d 1304 (Fed.Cir. 2003) (accrual tied to mitigation reports; permanency uncertainty affects accrual)
- Accrual Op. II, 76 Fed.Cl. 686 (2007) (claims accrued with publication of mitigation reports)
- Accrual Op. I, 49 Fed.Cl. 806 (2001) (accrual timing and jurisdictional considerations)
- Owen v. United States, 851 F.2d 1404 (Fed.Cir. 1988) (en banc; outlines ability to bring claims post-precedent conflicts)
- Miree v. DeKalb Cnty., 433 U.S. 25 (1981) (presumption of truth for well-pled allegations in jurisdictional context)
- Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Wetzel, 424 U.S. 737 (1976) (jurisdictional issues may be raised sua sponte)
- Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83 (1998) (jurisdiction is essential and may be raised at any stage)
- Intergraph Corp. v. Intel Corp., 253 F.3d 695 (Fed.Cir. 2001) (law-of-the-case exceptions and departure considerations)
- Toro Co. v. White Consol. Indus., Inc., 383 F.3d 1326 (Fed.Cir. 2004) (departure from law of the case requires extraordinary grounds)
- Pitman v. United States, 198 Ct.Cl. 82 (1972) (earlier erosion recovery framework informing accrual discussions)