Rocky Mountain Helium, LLC v. United States
841 F.3d 1320
| Fed. Cir. | 2016

Background

  • In 1994 Rocky Mountain Helium (Rocky Mountain) obtained a 25-year federal Helium Contract to recover helium from ~21,000 acres; it owed either $1/acre rent annually or royalties, whichever was greater.
  • Rocky Mountain paid rent only one year, stopped payments, and the Bureau of Land Management (the Bureau) notified Rocky Mountain it cancelled the Helium Contract for non-payment on December 29, 2004.
  • Rocky Mountain administratively appealed; before a CBCA decision, the parties executed a 2008 Settlement Agreement requiring the Bureau to obtain and deliver certain gas-composition “Data” from lessees; Rocky Mountain would pay $116,579.90 within 90 days of receiving complete Data, triggering reinstatement of the Helium Contract.
  • The Settlement Agreement contained a ‘‘Sunset Provision’’: failure to make the $116,579.90 payment after receiving the Data would forever release Rocky Mountain’s rights under the Helium Contract and permit the Bureau to contract with third parties for helium recovery. It also contained a disputes clause inviting voluntary ADR before CBCA Judge Goodman.
  • Rocky Mountain alleged the Bureau provided incomplete Data on December 5, 2008, refused to pay, invoked ADR, and the Bureau on April 21, 2009 invoked the Sunset Provision and declared the Helium Contract permanently terminated. Rocky Mountain sued in the Court of Federal Claims in 2015 for breach of (1) the Helium Contract and (2) the Settlement Agreement.
  • The Court of Federal Claims dismissed both claims (standing and timeliness issues for the Helium Contract; CBCA-disputes-clause jurisdictional bar for the Settlement Agreement). The Federal Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
1) Standing and §2501 statute-of-limitations for Helium Contract claim Rocky Mountain says it suffered concrete economic injury from the Bureau’s wrongful termination and has standing; termination effectively occurred in 2009 (not 2004) Govt. says Rocky Mountain lacks standing and, in any event, challenges to a 2004 termination are time-barred by 28 U.S.C. §2501 Rocky Mountain has constitutional standing; but any claim attacking a 2004 termination is barred by the six-year statute of limitations (28 U.S.C. §2501)
2) Merits of Helium Contract breach (was contract in force in 2009?) Rocky Mountain contends the Settlement Agreement and the Bureau’s failures prevented reinstatement; thus termination until 2009 was wrongful Govt. points to the 2004 cancellation and the Settlement Agreement’s recital that the 2004 cancellation occurred; no reinstatement actually happened Court found on the merits (reviewing attached documents) that the Helium Contract was terminated in 2004 and never reinstated; therefore Rocky Mountain’s timely (post-2009) claim based on an extant contract fails — Helium Contract breach claim dismissed on merits
3) Jurisdiction: Settlement Agreement disputes clause/CBCA ADR requirement Rocky Mountain argues it invoked CBCA ADR under Rule 54 before the payment deadline and thus satisfied the disputes clause Govt argued the disputes clause required submission to Judge Goodman and thus divested the Court of Federal Claims of jurisdiction Parties’ joint letter showed Rocky Mountain did invoke Judge Goodman prior to the deadline; the disputes-clause argument does not bar jurisdiction on these facts — jurisdiction over the Settlement Agreement claim stands
4) Tucker Act money-mandating question for Settlement Agreement Rocky Mountain: a breached commercial settlement agreement allows money damages under Tucker Act Govt: the Settlement Agreement is not money-mandating and therefore not a Tucker Act source Court held the Settlement Agreement is a commercial contract within the normal presumption that money damages are available for breach; it is money-mandating for Tucker Act jurisdiction

Key Cases Cited

  • Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (standing requires concrete, particularized, and imminent injury)
  • Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727 (economic injuries are cognizable for standing)
  • John R. Sand & Gravel Co. v. United States, 552 U.S. 130 (§2501 six-year limitations is jurisdictional)
  • United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206 (Tucker Act requires a money-mandating source)
  • Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., 551 U.S. 308 (courts may consider documents incorporated into the complaint on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion)
  • Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490 (standing inquiry does not depend on the merits)
  • Sanders v. United States, 252 F.3d 1329 (presumption that contract breaches permit monetary damages)
  • Holmes v. United States, 657 F.3d 1303 (money-damages presumption often ends the analysis)
  • Higbie v. United States, 778 F.3d 990 (limited situations where money damages are unavailable)
  • Rick’s Mushroom Serv., Inc. v. United States, 521 F.3d 1338 (distinguishing noncommercial agreements where monetary relief may be unavailable)
Read the full case