Lone Star Industries, Inc. v. United States
111 Fed. Cl. 257
| Fed. Cl. | 2013Background
- Lone Star Industries owns a deep-draft terminal on the Michoud Canal in New Orleans and claims MRGO closure deprived it of deep-draft vessel access to its facility.
- Lone Star filed suit in the Court of Federal Claims alleging a Fifth Amendment taking and related rights from the 2009 MRGO closure.
- The court previously dismissed the complaint for failure to allege a cognizable property interest and allowed an amended complaint.
- In the amended complaint, Lone Star alleged a real estate and improvements interest and an accessory right of deep-draft access under state and federal law, but failed to show a compensable right to deep-draft access.
- The court determined Lone Star’s deep-draft access was not a property right that inheres in title to the property and was not directly regulated by the MRGO closure.
- The court also analyzed Louisiana predial servitude law and found Lone Star still had public access routes, with deep-water access being the only eliminated access.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Lone Star has a cognizable property interest for a takings claim | Lone Star asserts it has a right to deep-draft access as a property interest. | Government argues no cognizable property right to deep-draft access existed. | No cognizable property interest shown. |
| Whether navigational servitude defeats a takings claim | Navigational servitude should not bar a potential takings claim if a property right exists. | WRDA navigational servitude subsumes the claimed interest upon MRGO’s closure. | Navigational servitude defeats the takings claim. |
| Whether Louisiana predial servitude law supports a right of passage to maintain deep-draft access | Predial servitude grants passage suitable for necessary traffic to an enclosed estate, supporting deep-draft access. | Even with predial servitudes, Lone Star still lacks a right to deep-draft access via the estate. | Louisiana law does not confer a right to deep-draft access here. |
| Whether the Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal was properly treated as a takings claim and the need for amendment | The court should accept allegations of a cognizable property interest and reconsider. | Plaintiff failed to plead a compensable property interest and direct regulatory impact. | Dismissal affirmed; no salvageable takings claim. |
| Whether Rule 59/60 relief is warranted for reconsideration | New evidence or manifest injustice warrants relief. | No manifest error or extraordinary circumstances shown. | Rule 59/60 relief denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- American Pelagic Fishing Co. v. United States, 379 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (no cognizable property interest in EEZ fishing permits)
- Air Pegasus of D.C., Inc. v. United States, 424 F.3d 1206 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (regulation causing loss of use may be derivative; not takings)
- Natale v. Town of Ridgefield, 170 F.3d 258 (2d Cir. 1999) (existence of a federally protectable property right is an issue of law)