Stockton East Water District v. United States
638 F.3d 781
| Fed. Cir. | 2011Background
- Water districts sued the United States in 1993 alleging breach of water supply contracts.
- A 2007 Court of Federal Claims decision found in favor of the Government after an eight-day trial.
- This Court (Fed. Cir.) reversed, holding breaches occurred but defenses did not fully absolve liability and remanded for damages.
- We concluded Article 9(a) drought-type defense applied to some years (1994–1995) but not others (1999–2004).
- Government sought rehearing; we granted limited rehearing to explain why no remand for additional liability evidence was warranted.
- Damages phase remand remains authorized; further evidentiary wrangling on liability is not required.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the Government breach the contracts by failing to deliver promised water? | Districts assert breach of contract; non-delivery established. | Government contends defenses negate liability. | Breaches found; defenses insufficient to negate liability in full. |
| Whether Article 9(a) drought-type defense valid for the years at issue. | N/A (plaintiffs rely on breach findings). | Drought-based defense can excuse non-delivery under Article 9(a). | Valid for 1994–1995; not for 1999–2004. |
| Whether the Government should be allowed to present additional evidence on remand for liability. | Remand to develop further liability evidence if warranted. | Additional evidence unnecessary; burden and facts already developed. | No remand for extra liability evidence; limited remand for damages. |
| Whether the Government’s proposed witnesses would alter the liability outcome. | N/A. | Witnesses address operations, not the contract defenses as construed. | Witnesses irrelevant to the dispositive contract defense; no effect on result. |
| Whether the court correctly allocated burden of proof on the Article 9(a) defense. | N/A (appeal focused on defense sufficiency). | Burden allocation appropriate; may apply burdens as appropriate given record. | Correct burden allocation applied; no remand required for liability. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brunswick Bank & Trust Co. v. United States, 707 F.2d 1355 (Fed.Cir. 1983) (correct burden allocation when trial court errs; efficiency in resolving liability)
- Castle v. United States, 301 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (takings action following contract damages; pleading burdens)
- Klamath Irrigation Dist. v. United States, 75 Fed.Cl. 677 (Fed.Cl. 2007) (distinction between impossibility and sovereign acts defenses; burden considerations)