LCM Energy Solutions v. United States
107 Fed. Cl. 770
| Fed. Cl. | 2012Background
- LCM Energy Solutions seeks money damages under Section 1603 of the Recovery Act for underpayment of a grant for specified energy property.
- Treasury partially allowed LCM’s grant requests, paying $482,504 of the $889,638 total.
- Treasury explained reductions due to cost basis and market conditions; documentation indicated price adjustments did not reflect actual price paid.
- LCM alleges the 1603 grant process entitles it to the full requested grant amount and also seeks consequential damages arising from Treasury’s purported violation.
- Government concedes Section 1603 is money-mandating and that Tucker Act jurisdiction exists to determine the primary grant amount, but moves to dismiss consequential damages for lack of jurisdiction.
- Court has previously held Section 1603 is money-mandating; issue is whether consequential damages are recoverable under that provision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is Section 1603 money-mandating for damages? | LCM argues 1603 mandates payment of full grant amount. | Government agrees 1603 is money-mandating for amount. | Yes; 1603 is money-mandating for the amount due. |
| May consequential damages be recovered under Section 1603? | LCM contends consequential damages are recoverable as part of 1603. | Government argues no jurisdiction and no entitlement to consequential damages under 1603. | No; consequential damages are not recoverable under 1603; dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. |
| Does ARRA Energy Company v. United States control availability of consequential damages here? | LCM reads ARRA as permitting consequential damages as a Tucker Act claim. | ARRA doesn’t decide availability of consequential damages; it addressed jurisdiction and contract-like theories. | ARRA does not authorize consequential damages; not controlling for availability. |
| Can LCM pursue a breach-of-contract theory to obtain consequential damages? | LCM suggests similarities to breach of contract support consequential damages. | ARRA rejected implied-in-fact contract for reimbursement; no contract claim here. | No contract claim pleaded; consequential damages not available absent contract. |
Key Cases Cited
- ARRA Energy Co. v. United States, 97 Fed.Cl. 12 (Fed. Cl. 2011) (held Section 1603 is money-mandating)
- Fisher v. United States, 402 F.3d 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (jurisdictional/sovereign immunity considerations under Tucker Act)
- United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392 (Supreme Court 1976) (statutory rights to money damages under Tucker Act require money-mandating statute)
- United States v. White Mountain Apache Tribe, 537 U.S. 465 (Supreme Court 2003) (statutory rights read to support Tucker Act recovery when reasonably interpreted)
- Eastport S.S. Corp. v. United States, 372 F.2d 1002 (Ct. Cl. 1967) (interpretation of money-mandating provisions)
- West Coast Gen. Corp. v. Dalton, 39 F.3d 312 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (caution on reading statutes as creating contracts or discretionary relief)
- SGS-92-X003 v. United States, 85 Fed.Cl. 678 (Fed. Cl. 2009) (consequential damages restricted to contract contexts)
- United States v. Bormes, 133 S. Ct. 12 (Supreme Court 2012) (Treasury/contract-like theories; not directly ruling on 1603 damages here)