Free Motion to Dismiss - Rule 12(b)(6) - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case 1:07-cv-00035-CCM

Document 11-2

Filed 07/13/2007

Page 1 of 4

No. 07-35C (Judge Eric G. Bruggink)

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS

PALMYRA PACIFIC SEAFOODS, L.L.C., a Washington limited liability company; PALMYRA PACIFIC ENTERPRISES, L.L.C., a Washington limited liability company; PPE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a Washington limited partnership; KINGMAN REEF ENTERPRISES, L.L.C., a Washington limited liability company; and FRANK SORBA, an individual, Plaintiffs, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant.

DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

PETER D. KEISLER Assistant Attorney General JEANNE E. DAVIDSON Director MARK A. MELNICK Assistant Director OF COUNSEL: Mariel J. Combs Attorney U.S. Department of Interior Office of the Solicitor Pacific Northwest Region 500 N.E. Multnomah Street Suite 607 Portland, Oregon 97232 MARLA T. CONNEELY Trial Attorney Commercial Litigation Branch Civil Division Department of Justice Attn: Classification Unit 8th Floor 1100 L Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530 Tel: (202)305-3689 Fax: (202)305-7643 Attorneys for Defendant

July 13, 2007

Case 1:07-cv-00035-CCM

Document 11-2

Filed 07/13/2007

Page 2 of 4

TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE(S) STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES ....................................... 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE ......................................... 2 I. II. Nature Of The Case .................................. 2 Statement Of Facts .................................. 3 A. The Establishment Of Palmyra And Kingman Reef As National Wildlife Refuges .............. 3 The License And Sublicense Agreements .......... 6

B.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ........................................... 8 ARGUMENT ...................................................... 9 I. II. Legal Standards ..................................... 9 Plaintiff's Fail To State A Takings Claim Upon Which Relief Can Be Granted ................... 10 A. Plaintiff's Failure To Demonstrate The Existence Of A Legally Cognizable Property Interest That Could Have Been Taken Is Fatal To Their Takings Claims .......................... 12 Plaintiff's Failure To Demonstrate The Existence Of A Compensable Property Interest Is Fatal To Their Takings Claims ..... 14 Plaintiff KRE Is Not A Party To The License Or Sublicenses Identified In The Amended Complaint, And, Therefore, Its Claims Should Be Dismissed Pursuant To RCFC 12(b)(6) ................................. 18

B.

C.

CONCLUSION ................................................... 19

i

Case 1:07-cv-00035-CCM

Document 11-2

Filed 07/13/2007

Page 3 of 4

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES PAGE(S) Alves v. United States, 133 F.3d 1454 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ......................... American Pelagic Fishing Co. v. United States, 379 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2004) .................

13

11, 12, 14

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) .................................

9, 10

Banknote Corp. of Am., Inc. v. United States, 365 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ......................... Conti v. United States, 291 F.3d 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2002) .....................

15

passim

General Casualty Co. of Am. v. United States, 130 Ct. Cl. 127 F. Supp. 805, cert. denied, 349 U.S. 938 (1955) ...................... Gould, Inc. v. United States, 935 F.2d 1271 (Fed. Cir. 1991) ......................... Klamath Irrigation Dist. v. United States, 67 Fed.Cl. 504 (2005) .................................. Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (1992) ................................... Mingus Constructors, Inc. v. United States, 812 F.2d 1387 (Fed. Cir. 1987) .......................... Penn Central Transp. Co. v. New York City, 438 U.S. 104 (1978) .................................... Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 U.S. 393 (1922) .................................... Perez v. United States, 156 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 1998) .......................... ii

15

15

15

12

9

11

11

9

Case 1:07-cv-00035-CCM

Document 11-2

Filed 07/13/2007

Page 4 of 4

Pollard's Lessee v. Hagen, 44 U.S. 212 (1845) ...................................... Ponder v. United States, 117 F.3d 549 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ........................... Ralph Larson & Son, Inc. v. United States, 17 Cl. Ct. 39 (1989) ...................................

6

9

10

United States v. California, 332 U.S. 19 (1947) ....................................... 6 United States v. Fuller, 409 U.S. 488 (1973) ................................

12, 14

Varilease Technology Group, Inc. v. United States, 289 F.3d 795 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ........................... STATUTES 16 U.S.C. § 668dd(a) ......................................... 40 U.S.C. § 524(b) ........................................... Exec. Order No. 6935 (December 29, 1934) ..................... Exec. Order No. 8682 ......................................... 48 Fed. Reg. 10,605 (March 10, 1983) ........................

1

5 5 4 4 15

iii