Laguna Hermosa Corp. v. United States
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 2368
| Fed. Cir. | 2012Background
- Lake Berryessa recreation area is federally owned; Laguna Hermosa operated as a concessionaire under Napa County agreements dating back to 1958.
- Concessionaire facilities were developed and later left in place when Laguna Hermosa’s contract expired in 2008.
- Frazier v. United States (2008) held that Public Law 96-375 generally compensates retained facilities only if the government requires them to remain; Laguna Hermosa contested this in separate suit.
- Two years after expiration, Bureau entered a new concession with Pensus; Laguna Hermosa claims facilities were used by government or Pensus and seeks compensation under 96-375.
- The Court of Federal Claims dismissed Laguna Hermosa’s complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) for issue preclusion and because 96-375 did not provide a remedy as to facilities after lease expiration.
- This appeal challenges the issue preclusion ruling and the statutory interpretation of 5(b) to trigger compensation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether issue preclusion bars the claim | Laguna Hermosa argues Frazier decision forecloses its claim | United States contends issues were identical and adjudicated in Frazier | Issue preclusion does not apply |
| What triggering action 'require' means under 5(b) | Laguna Hermosa contends retention and use by government implies requirement to remain | United States argues 'require' requires affirmative government action; mere retention does not trigger compensation | No triggering action found; claim fails under 5(b) |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Freeman, 30 F.3d 1459 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (elements of issue preclusion)
- A.B. Dick Co. v. Burroughs Corp., 713 F.2d 700 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (four conditions for issue preclusion)
- Lindsay v. United States, 295 F.3d 1252 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (plausibility standard for Rule 12(b)(6))
- Cary v. United States, 552 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (de novo review of Rule 12(b)(6) dismissals)
- Santa Fe Indus., Inc. v. Green, 430 U.S. 462 (Sup. Ct. 1977) (statutory construction defaults to text first)
- Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303 (Sup. Ct. 1980) (legislative history as aid to interpretation)
- Nutrition 21 v. United States, 930 F.2d 862 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (legislative history clarifies statutory interpretation)
- Intel Corp. v. VIA Tech., Inc., 319 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (definition of 'required' in contract context)
- Frazier v. United States, 301 F. App’x 974 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (limitation: whether government required facilities remain)
- Hubert v. United States, N/A (N/A) (not cited as a separate authority in opinion)