TOXCO, INC. v. Chu
801 F. Supp. 2d 1
D.D.C.2011Background
- DOE oversees radioactive waste disposal; SPRU site remediation required due to contamination from 1950s operations
- ARC contracted in 2004 for SP15 task-order remediation, requiring DOE consent for subcontracts
- ARC subcontracted with EnergySolutions in 2008; ARC sought and received DOE consent to subcontract with Toxco
- DOE issued Consent Order on Aug. 11, 2009, disclaiming government privity and not binding to purchase services
- DOE withdrew its consent to ARC-Toxco subcontract on Aug. 19, 2009; ARC cancelled with Toxco and EnergySolutions completed the work by June 2010
- Toxco filed suit in Oct. 2009 alleging APA violation and due process violation; court granted dismissal of APA claim as moot and granted summary judgment on due process
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the APA claim is moot | Toxco seeks future work; relief may be declaratory | Work completed; no live relief | APA claim moot; dismissed |
| Whether Toxco has a due process property interest in the ARC-Toxco subcontract | Consent created entitlement | Consent denied creation of entitlement; no binding obligation | No cognizable property interest; summary judgment for defendants |
| Whether declaratory or injunctive relief could salvage moot claims | Declaratory relief possible; future relief | Relief unavailable when contract performed | Declaratory/injunctive relief unavailable; mootness persists |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Erie v. Pap's A.M., 529 U.S. 277 (U.S. 2000) (mootness and standing principles in case-or-controversy)
- Roth v. United States, 408 U.S. 564 (U.S. 1972) (legitimate entitlement required for property interests under due process)
- Pharmachemie B.V. v. Barr Labs., Inc., 276 F.3d 627 (D.C.Cir. 2002) (capable of repetition, yet evading review doctrine application)
- Columbian Rope Co. v. West, 142 F.3d 1313 (D.C.Cir. 1998) (mootness where contract performed; no relief available)
- Pub. Utils. Comm'n of Cal. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 236 F.3d 708 (D.C.Cir. 2001) (capable of repetition, yet evading review framework)
- 21st Century Telesis Joint Venture v. F.C.C., 318 F.3d 192 (D.C.Cir. 2003) (mootness standards and live controversy evaluation)