Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin v. United States of America
841 F. Supp. 2d 99
D.D.C.2012Background
- Menominee, a federally recognized tribe, seeks contract support costs (CSC) from IHS for 1995–2000 under ISDA.
- The six-year CDA statute of limitations (41 U.S.C. § 605) is at issue, with the D.C. Circuit tolling framework being applied on remand.
- The D.C. Circuit held CDA limitations are potentially tollable, and remanded to consider equitable tolling in this case.
- Menominee relied on Ramah and Cherokee Nation class actions to argue tolling and potential class-based relief; Cherokee Nation was later affirmed by the Supreme Court.
- The court previously held 1996–1998 shortfall claims barred by statute and 1999–2000 stable-funding claims depend on the law of the case; the 1995 claim remains undecided.
- This decision grants summary judgment for the United States on the 1996–1998 shortfalls and the 1999–2000 stable-funding claim, and denies summary judgment on the 1995 claim pending further briefing on its accrual and damages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether equitable tolling applies to 1996–1998 CSC claims. | Menominee argues tolling is warranted due to reliance on Ramah/Cherokee Nation and evolving law. | US asserts no extraordinary circumstance; tolling not justified. | Equitable tolling is inappropriate; summary judgment for US on 1996–1998. |
| Whether the 1995 CSC claim is subject to the CDA statute of limitations. | ISDA pre-1995 contract and pre-CDA framework support tolling. | Notwithstanding, accrual and timeliness must be addressed; potential tolling issues unresolved. | Not fully resolved; 1995 claim not barred by tolling for accrual but requires further factual briefing. |
| Whether the 1999–2000 stable-funding claim is barred by law of the case. | Argues carve-outs from prior rulings allow recovery. | Law of the case forecloses; pre-1999 period controls. | Granted summary judgment for US; stable-funding claim barred by law of the case. |
| Whether the 1996 claim would be time-barred even if tolling were available. | Argues accrual delayed until damages ascertainable. | Under contract breach accrues at breach; limitations start earlier. | Even with tolling, 1996 claim would be time-barred. |
| Whether the government’s alleged shifting positions or class dynamics justify tolling. | Claims tolling due to government positions changing during Cherokee Nation. | Position changes do not excuse late filing; no extraordinary circumstance. | No tolling based on government position changes; tolling denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Holland v. Florida, 130 S. Ct. 2549 (U.S. 2010) (flexible, case-by-case tolling requiring diligence and extraordinary circumstances)
- Irwin v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, 498 U.S. 89 (U.S. 1990) (two-prong test for equitable tolling: diligence and extraordinary circumstance)
- American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538 (U.S. 1974) (class action tolling distinguished from equitable tolling)
- Cherokee Nation of Okla. v. United States, 543 U.S. 631 (U.S. 2005) (Supreme Court reject full CSC nonpayment; tolling framework discussed)
- Kinsey v. United States, 852 F.2d 556 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (claims accrue when payment due and withheld in breach of contract)
- Bright v. United States, 603 F.3d 1273 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (distinguishes class action tolling from equitable tolling)