Geneva Rock Products, Inc. v. United States
100 Fed. Cl. 778
Fed. Cl.2011Background
- Geneva Rock seeks class certification under RCFC 23 in a rails-to-trails takings case related to a 3.23-mile Provo Industrial Lead rail line in Utah.
- Geneva Rock owns land underlying or abutting the abandoned rail corridor; owner claims a taking under the Trails Act based on the NITU-issued trail designation.
- In 2002-2003, Union Pacific sold assets but retained an easement; STB proceedings led to a NITU on December 31, 2002 and an agreement for trail use by Utah Transit in March 2003.
- Geneva Rock filed the complaint in December 2008 alleging a taking and seeking class certification for landowners with reversionary interests; the case was stayed pending Fauvergue v. United States and later reactivated.
- The government argues claims are time-barred for putative class members, and that the proposed class fails RCFC 23 criteria; Bright v. United States tolling principles guide the analysis.
- The court tolls the six-year § 2501 limitations period for the opt-in phase during the class-formation period, applying Toscano and Bright principles, and proceeds to analyze RCFC 23 requirements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does § 2501 toll the opt-in period for the class action? | Geneva Rock relies on Bright and Toscano to toll during opt-in. | Government argues Bright does not apply due to timing of certification motion. | Yes; statutory tolling applies during the opt-in period. |
| Is Geneva Rock's complaint sufficient to toll the statute of limitations for the class? | Complaint alleges a common NITU-taking impact on class landowners and seeks class certification. | Complaint lacks detailed class-membership data and specifics may bar tolling. | Complaint sufficiently tolls the limitations period for the opt-in phase. |
| Does the proposed class meet numerosity under RCFC 23(a)(1) given an opt-in structure? | Approximately 23 potential class members identified; joinder impracticable due to number and size of claims. | No exact count; concerns about precise membership and timing of ownership. | Numerosity satisfied; ~23 members is within acceptable bounds for certification. |
| Do common questions predominate and is there a common issue for the class under RCFC 23(a)(2) and 23(b)? | NITU issuance affects all class members; common legal questions predominate over individual damages. | Commonality questioned due to variations in property interests and conveyances. | Yes; there is a common question—the taking under the NITU—predominating over individual issues. |
| Are typicality and adequacy satisfied for class certification? | Named Geneva Rock’s claim arises from same core taking theory as class members; class counsel adequate. | Challenges to typicality based on varying interests; adequacy concerns about representation. | Typicality and adequacy satisfied; named plaintiff’s claims are representative of class claims. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bright v. United States, 603 F.3d 1273 (Fed.Cir. 2010) (class-action tolling when certification sought before limitations expire)
- Toscano v. United States, 98 F.3d 152 (Fed.Cl. 2011) (tolling of § 2501 where complaint seeks class certification prior to expiration)
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (U.S. 2011) (rigorous analysis for class certification; commonality and the role of damages)
- American Pipe & Constr. Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538 (U.S. 1974) (permitting tolling and relation to class actions in tolling contexts)
- United States v. General Motors Corp., 323 U.S. 373 (U.S. 1945) (taking principles and compensation scope)