Oenga v. United States
2011 U.S. Claims LEXIS 70
Fed. Cl.2011Background
- Oenga v. United States concerns breach of trust for BPX's unauthorized use of Oengas' native allotment.
- Damages were to be measured as fair annual rental using Plaintiffs' cost savings method (Power) based on alternative bypass road cost.
- Court deemed BPX's bypass road as a viable alternative and rejected using subsea pipeline as the sole baseline.
- Trial court initially found $4.924 million in damages using a 7% real rate + 2.88% CPI over a 16-year life.
- Pre-trial stipulation required adjusting for 150,000 barrels reallocation from West Niakuk to Niakuk; damages reflect this adjustment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Appropriate baseline alternative for cost savings | Oenga | BPX | Bypass road viable; denial of reconsideration |
| Discount rate to use in amortization | Power used real rate; BPX used nominal | 7% nominal with CPI avoids undercompensation? | 7% real rate + CPI appropriate; nominal + CPI would double-count inflation; ruling revised but effective rate unchanged |
| Cost of alternative (bypass road price) | Use upper end $5.3M | Use $4.4M lower end | Use $5.3 million; denial of reconsideration |
| Amortization period and future damages | 16-year project life; damages cover ongoing unauthorized uses | Suggest 45-year amortization for future damages | Damages tied to 16-year life; future damages not expanded by longer amortization; denial of extended period |
| Rent paid offset against damages | Offsets not applicable to breach damages | Rent paid should offset unauthorized damages | No offset; damages = fair annual rent for unauthorized uses only |
Key Cases Cited
- Young v. United States, 94 Fed.Cl. 671 (2010) (intervening change in controlling law; reconsideration standards)
- Bd. of Trs. of Bay Med. Ctr. v. Humana Military Healthcare Servs., Inc., 447 F.3d 1370 (Fed.Cir.2006) (reconsideration standards; exceptional care)
- Fla. Power & Light Co. v. United States, 66 Fed.Cl. 93 (2005) (reconsideration; errors and manifest injustice)
- Henderson Cnty. Drainage Dist. No. 3 v. United States, 55 Fed.Cl. 334 (2003) (exceptional care in reconsideration)
- Fru-Con Constr. Corp. v. United States, 44 Fed.Cl. 298 (1999) (primary authority on reconsideration standards)
- Four Rivers Invs., Inc. v. United States, 78 Fed.Cl. 662 (2007) (limits on new arguments in motions for reconsideration)
- Caldwell v. United States, 391 F.3d 1226 (Fed.Cir.2004) (extraordinary circumstances justify relief)