Free Answer - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case 1:05-cv-01119-SGB

Document 11

Filed 01/17/2006

Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS ROCCO TOMMASEO, and THOMAS TOMMASEO, and ROCKY AND CARLO, INC., and STEVEN BORDELON, husband of, and CYNTHIA BORDELON and, STEVE'S MOBILE HOME & R.V. REPAIR, INC. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Defendant. ) __________________________________________)

No. 05-1119L Hon. Susan G. Braden

ANSWER OF THE UNITED STATES Comes now the United States of America, Defendant herein and files its answer to the First Amended Complaint herein and would respectfully show unto the Court the following: 1. The allegations of Paragraph 1 of the First Amended Complaint state conclusions of law to which no response is required. Defendant admits that the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491, is the principal statute conferring jurisdiction on this Court. 2. Defendant is without knowledge as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 2 and said allegations are therefore denied. 3. Defendant admits the allegations of Paragraph 3. 4. Defendant admits the allegations of Paragraph 4. 5. Defendant admits the allegations of Paragraph 5. 6. Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph 6. 7. Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph 7. 8. Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph 8. 9. Defendant admits the allegations of Paragraph 9. 10. Defendant is without knowledge as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 10,

Case 1:05-cv-01119-SGB

Document 11

Filed 01/17/2006

Page 2 of 3

and said allegations are therefore denied. 11. Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph 11. 12. Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph 12. 13. Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph 13. 14. Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph 14. 15. In response to Paragraph 15, Defendant realleges its response to the Paragraphs in the First Amended Complaint cited therein. 16. The allegations of Paragraph 16 state conclusions of law to which no response is required. Defendant denies that there has been a permanent taking of Plaintiffs' property. 17. Defendant is without knowledge as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 17, and said allegations are therefore denied. 18. In response to Paragraph 18, Defendant realleges its response to the Paragraphs in the First Amended Complaint cited therein. 19. Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph 19. Defendant denies that there has been a temporary taking of Plaintiffs' property. 20. Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph 20. Defendant denies that there has been a permanent taking of Plaintiffs' property. 21. In response to Paragraph 21, Defendant realleges its response to the Paragraphs in the First Amended Complaint cited therein. 22. Defendant admits the allegation in Paragraph 22 that Hurricane Rita struck a portion of the Louisiana Coast on or about September 24, 2005. Defendant denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 22. 23. Defendant is without knowledge as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 23, and said allegations are therefore denied. 24. Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph 24. 25. The allegations of Paragraph 25 are conclusions of law to which no response is required. Defendant denies that there has been a taking of Plaintiffs' property for a flowage easement. 26. In response to Paragraph 26, Defendant realleges its response to the Paragraphs in the First Amended Complaint cited therein.

Case 1:05-cv-01119-SGB

Document 11

Filed 01/17/2006

Page 3 of 3

27. In response to Paragraph 27, Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs do not constitute proper representatives of an alleged class and that no such class should be found to exist. 28. Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph 28. 29. Defendant is without knowledge as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 29 and said allegations are therefore denied. Defendant denies that Plaintiffs are entitled to any of the relief sought and alleges that Judgment should be entered in favor of the United States dismissing this case and granting the United States such other relief as the Court deems appropriate. All allegations of the First Amended Complaint which have not been specifically admitted or otherwise answered are hereby denied. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 1. Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 2. Plaintiffs' claim is barred by the applicable statute of limitations, 28 U.S.C. § 2501. 3. This Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' claim because it sounds in Tort. Respectfully Submitted, this the 17th Day of January, 2006.

SUE ELLEN WOOLDRIDGE Assistant Attorney General Environment and Natural Resources Division

s/ Fred R. Disheroon by Mark T. Romley Fred R. Disheroon, Special Litigation Counsel Mark T. Romley, Trial Attorney Natural Resources Section Environment and Natural Resources Division U.S. Department of Justice 601 D St. N.W., Room 3022 Washington D.C. 20004 (202) 616 9649 Fax: (202) 616 9667