Lengen v. United States
100 Fed. Cl. 317
Fed. Cl.2011Background
- Takings case challenging avigation easement over plaintiffs’ property at Dobbins ARB.
- Defendant moves for judgment on the pleadings under RCFC 12(b)(1)/12(e) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
- Court holds claims untimely under 28 U.S.C. § 2501 and adopts Tucker Act limits on jurisdiction for direct condemnations.
- The government acquired the 2008 avigation easement via direct condemnation action in district court; this court lacks jurisdiction to review that proceeding.
- Plaintiffs allege a temporary taking from August 2005 to November 2008 and seek compensation and fees.
- Court analyzes whether the claimed taking accrued after January 14, 2004 and whether any new burdens post-2004 constitute a second taking.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Takings claims are timely under § 2501. | Plaintiffs allege August 2005–November 2008 taking. | Claims accrued before January 14, 2004; untimely. | Untimely; six-year limit applies. |
| Whether claims sound in tort and are outside subject matter jurisdiction. | Overflights constitute inverse condemnation. | Tucker Act limits to takings, not tort. | Not addressed; claims barred on timeliness. |
| Whether post-2004 changes created a second taking. | Increased burden post-2004; second taking. | No substantial change in flights, paths, or noise post-2004. | No second timely taking proven. |
| Whether the case should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction over direct condemnation actions. | Direct condemnation pending; inverse condemnation implied. | Direct condemnation in district court; this court lacks jurisdiction to review. | Dismissal limited to timely inverse condemnation; jurisdictional ruling stands. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Causby, 328 U.S. 256 (U.S. 1946) (airspace takings require direct, immediate interference at low altitudes)
- Town & Country Motor Hotel, Inc. v. United States, 180 Ct.Cl. 563 (Ct. Cl. 1967) (accrual and substantial interference standards for avigation easements)
- Davis v. United States, 295 F.2d 931 (Ct.Cl. 1961) (second taking possible with increased burden; no rigid accrual rule)
- Robertson v. United States, 352 F.2d 539 (Ct.Cl. 1965) (clear distinction between clearance easement and avigation easement)
- Branning v. United States, 654 F.2d 88 (Ct.Cl. 1981) (new aircraft can cause a second taking when burden increases)