United States v. Buckingham Coal Company, 2:11-cv-00383

US sues Ohio and Buckingham over coal mining rights beneath the Tom Jenkins Dam project; Buckingham counterclaims for tortious interference with contract.
Ohio–US Cooperative Agreement 1948 gave Ohio fee simple title to project lands and US a perpetual flowage easement.
Ohio leased mining rights to Buckingham in 2010; Buckingham began mining after MHSA permit.
US filed action May 4, 2011 seeking declaratory and monetary relief; Buckingham counterclaimed May 29, 2012.
Court analyzes Rule 12(b)(1) facial attack and Rule 12(b)(6); addresses recoupment as a potential narrow sovereign-immunity workaround.
US motion to dismiss Buckingham’s counterclaim denied; Buckingham may pursue recoupment against the US.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Recoupment viability against the United States	Buckingham argues recoupment allows offset against US claims	US contends FTCA waiver excludes contract-interference; recoupment is narrow	Recoupment available if conditions met (same transaction, same-type relief, not exceeding US claim)
Arising out of the same transaction or occurrence	Buckingham’s claim relates to Buckingham–Ohio mining contracts and US litigation	US claims focus on US–Ohio contracts; Buckingham claims focus on US interference with those contracts	Buckingham’s counterclaim arises from the same transaction/occurrence as the US suit
Relief type and scope of recoupment	Buckingham seeks to reduce/defeat US damages	Recoupment must not seek affirmative relief beyond US entitlement	Relief sought is monetary and aimed at reducing US recovery, not broad affirmative relief
Sufficiency of Buckingham's tortious interference claim	Siegel requires breach for tortious interference	Interference with performance (not necessarily breach) suffices under Restatement and Ohio cases	Buckingham pleads sufficient facts that US interfered with its contract performance
Privilege/interest defense by US	US claims privileged to protect its own interests	Buckingham contends US had no privileged interest to justify interference	Record shows Buckingham’s allegations survive at pleading stage; privilege not established

United States v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 309 U.S. 506 (U.S. 1940) (recoupment as an exception to sovereign immunity; defense reduces government recovery)
Bull v. United States, 295 U.S. 247 (U.S. 1935) (recoupment concept in government suits)
Frederick v. United States, 386 F.2d 481 (5th Cir. 1967) (elements of recoupment: same transaction, same relief type, no excess over government claim)
Rosebud Sioux Tribe v. Val-U Construction Co. of S. Dakota, Inc., 50 F.3d 560 (8th Cir. 1995) (recoupment as defense to reduce government recovery; not affirmative relief)
Moore v. New York Cotton Exchange, 270 U.S. 593 (U.S. 1926) (definition of transaction/occurrence for recoupment; broad conception of relatedness)
In re Gordon Sel-Way, Inc., 270 F.3d 280 (6th Cir. 2001) (same-transaction/occurrence approach in context of related claims)