Tulsa Airports Improvements Trust v. United States
120 Fed. Cl. 254
| Fed. Cl. | 2015Background
- Tulsa Airports administered a multi‑phase FAA‑funded Noise Abatement Program at Tulsa International Airport and contracted with Cinnabar to perform phase‑two work under Grant 47 and Grant 50.
- Contractors experienced a >90‑day stand‑by due to anticipated grant funding; Cinnabar paid subcontractors $705,913.40 for delay/escalation costs.
- FAA initially reimbursed some amounts but later demanded repayment or denied reimbursement totaling ≈$656,000, which Tulsa Airports repaid and later sought reconsideration of.
- Tulsa Airports filed administrative requests in 2012; the FAA declined reconsideration in an Oct. 24, 2012 letter and by Associate Administrator letter on Dec. 31, 2012.
- Tulsa Airports sued in the Court of Federal Claims under the Tucker Act seeking reimbursement for the delay costs; the government moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction (49 U.S.C. §§ 46110 or 47111), time‑bar (28 U.S.C. § 2501), and failure to plead damages.
- The Court concluded Tucker Act jurisdiction is displaced by §§ 46110/47111, found Tulsa’s contract‑damage pleading sufficient, denied dismissal, and transferred the case to the Tenth Circuit under 28 U.S.C. § 1631.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Court of Federal Claims has Tucker Act jurisdiction over denial/withholding of grant reimbursement | Tulsa: FAA acted as a contracting party; this is a breach‑of‑contract claim properly in Court of Federal Claims | U.S.: §§ 46110 or 47111 grant exclusive review in the courts of appeals for FAA orders withholding or denying grant payments | Court: Jurisdiction under the Tucker Act is displaced by either § 47111 or § 46110; transfer appropriate |
| Whether FAA action of Dec. 31, 2012 was a reviewable "order" triggering courts‑of‑appeals jurisdiction | Tulsa: FAA did not follow § 47111 procedural withholding steps; letter was not a final order and invited further submissions | U.S.: The Associate Administrator’s letter determined rights and had legal consequences and thus qualifies as an "order" | Court: Need not decide which section controls; either § 46110 or § 47111 would displace Tucker Act jurisdiction |
| Whether Tulsa’s claim is time‑barred under 28 U.S.C. § 2501 | Tulsa: accrual was deferred by course of dealing and FAA’s 2012 reconsideration; claim accrued no earlier than Oct./Dec. 2012 | U.S.: accrual occurred when Tulsa reimbursed the government in July 2006; suit is untimely | Court: Because appellate review statutes displace Tucker Act jurisdiction, § 2501 limitations is not controlling here; timeliness under the 60‑day statutes of §§ 46110/47111 is for transferee court to decide |
| Whether Tulsa adequately pleaded damages | Tulsa: pleaded actual payments made by Cinnabar and FAA’s prior practice of grant adjustments and reopenings; statutory authority allows increases up to 15% | U.S.: Tulsa already received grant amounts; additional recovery would be extra‑contractual and not recoverable | Court: Tulsa pleaded sufficient facts to state a plausible claim for damages (grant adjustments and course of dealing support claim) |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206 (statutory waiver of sovereign immunity and Tucker Act context)
- Bormes v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 12 (2012) (specific statutory schemes can preempt general remedies)
- Pucciariello v. United States, 116 Fed. Cl. 390 (Fed. Cl. 2014) (§ 46110 displaces Tucker Act jurisdiction over FAA orders)
- Bitz v. Napolitano, 700 F.3d 733 (4th Cir. 2012) (courts of appeals have exclusive review under § 46110)
- Jones v. United States, 625 F.3d 827 (5th Cir. 2010) (§ 46110 vests exclusive jurisdiction in courts of appeals)
- Americopters, LLC v. Federal Aviation Admin., 441 F.3d 726 (9th Cir. 2006) (direct and exclusive jurisdiction under § 46110)
- City of Dania Beach v. Federal Aviation Admin., 485 F.3d 1181 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (agency letters that determine rights may be treated as reviewable orders)
- Oceanic S.S. Co. v. United States, 165 Ct. Cl. 217 (contract accrual principles)
- John R. Sand & Gravel Co. v. United States, 552 U.S. 130 (statute‑of‑limitations as condition on waiver of sovereign immunity)
- Zoltek Corp. v. United States, 672 F.3d 1309 (transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1631 requirements)