U.S. Home Corp. v. United States
108 Fed. Cl. 191
Fed. Cl.2012Background
- Developers allege hazardous waste contamination from former Raritan Arsenal on ~29 acres sold by the United States to developers via GSA transactions in 1989, 2002, and 2003.
- Contamination disclosed in 2005-2006; costs of remediation and development impacts alleged, including soil capping, monitoring, and lost profits.
- Plaintiffs initially asserted CERCLA claims and related relief in district court; the district court suit was settled and dismissed, with some claims proceeding in this court.
- This court previously relied on § 1500 precedent affirming jurisdiction; Supreme Court later overruled that approach in To0hono O’odham, requiring a § 1500 analysis based on substantially the same operative facts.
- This case now centers on whether the remaining deed covenants claim is barred by § 1500 due to substantially the same operative facts as the district court CERCLA claims.
- The court concludes § 1500 bars the remaining deed covenants claim and dismisses the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 1500 bars this Court from hearing the claim. | Developers argue differing theories allow proceeding in this court. | Government argues substantial overlap in operative facts with district court CERCLA claims triggers bar. | Yes; § 1500 bars this court. |
| What constitutes 'operative facts' under § 1500 post-Tohono O’odham? | Operative facts should differ due to deed covenants claim. | Operative facts concern government conduct underlying both suits. | Operative facts are the government conduct; they are substantially the same here. |
| Are res judicata tests (act/contract; evidence) controlling in applying § 1500? | Res judicata tests show differences between suits. | Keene standard governs; res judicata tests are secondary. | Act/contract test supports bar; evidence test is not controlling here. |
Key Cases Cited
- Tohono O’odham Nation v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 1723 (2011) (clarified § 1500 scope; substantial overlap of operative facts bars CFC claims)
- Keene Corp. v. United States, 508 U.S. 200 (1993) (test for substantial overlap of operative facts in two suits)
- Trusted Integration, Inc. v. United States, 659 F.3d 1159 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (focus on operative facts; res judicata principles secondary to § 1500 analysis; act/contract and evidence tests cited)
- Central Pines Land Co., L.L.C. v. United States, 697 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (distinguishes background vs. operative facts; § 1500 analysis on original complaint)
- U.S. Home Corp. v. United States, 92 Fed.Cl. 401 (2010) (preliminary § 1500 discussion; prior ruling later affected by Toho-no O’odham)