Free Joint Status Report - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case 1:05-cv-00847-MCW

Document 7

Filed 01/03/2006

Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS SCOTTDALE II ASSOCIATES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP Plaintiff, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. 05-847C (Judge Mary Ellen Coster Williams)

JOINT STATUS REPORT Pursuant to the Court's Order of October 4, 2005, the parties respectfully submit this Joint Status Report to apprise the Court of the status of their ongoing efforts to resolve certain closelyrelated cases through the Court's Alternative Dispute Resolution ("ADR") pilot program. This case is one of more than 160 suits filed with the Court since August 6, 2004 that have either been referred to the Court's ADR program or stayed pending the ADR proceedings. The parties continue to make good progress in their efforts pursuant to the ADR process. Counsel for the parties have been working to arrive at an approach by which many, and potentially all, of the currently pending FmHA Section 515 cases can be settled. Significant progress has been made over the last several months toward a damages model through which the settlement value of each claimant's case can be calculated. The parties have exchanged numerous sets of damages analyses over the past two months, including submissions made on November 7, 2005, November 8, 2005, and December 1, 2005. In addition, the parties have held numerous conferences among counsel, including extensive discussions that were held on November 8, 2005 and November 9, 2005. Through these discussions and exchanges, the parties believe that they have substantially resolved their prior disagreement regarding the apparent discrepancies in the mechanics of their

Case 1:05-cv-00847-MCW

Document 7

Filed 01/03/2006

Page 2 of 3

respective damages models. In addition, the parties have succeeded in further narrowing the gap between their respective positions. The parties have also discussed at length certain propertyspecific issues that may effect the calculation of damages for many of the properties at issue. Most recently, the parties held a face-to-face meeting on December 16, 2005, during which they discussed at length several alternatives that may enable the parties to bridge the present gap between their respective positions. In addition, the parties participated in a status conference with Judge Horn (the ADR judge) on November 11, 2005, and filed a Joint Status Report with Judge Horn on December 19, 2005 to report on their progress. The parties are scheduled to hold an in-person conference before Judge Horn on January 18, 2006, which the parties intend to use as a vehicle to present the Court a more detailed account of their current efforts and present information and/or argument concerning their respective views. As noted above, the parties hope that their current efforts will produce a methodology that can be applied to the remaining cases that have been designated for ADR, and to the remaining related cases that have been stayed. In sum, the parties have been pleased with the ADR process to date and desire to continue with those efforts.

2

Case 1:05-cv-00847-MCW

Document 7

Filed 01/03/2006

Page 3 of 3

Respectfully submitted, PETER D. KEISLER Assistant Attorney General s/ David M. Cohen DAVID M. COHEN Director s/ Shalom Brilliant SHALOM BRILLIANT Senior Trial Counsel Commercial Litigation Branch Civil Division Department of Justice 1100 L Street, N.W. Attn: Classification Unit Room 8012 Washington, D.C. 20530 Tele: (202) 305-7561 Fax: (202) 305-7643 Attorneys for Defendant

s/ Jeff H. Eckland JEFF H. ECKLAND Mark J. Blando, Of Counsel Eckland & Blando LLP 500 Lumber Exchange 10 South Fifth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Tele: (612) 236-0160 Fax: (612) 236-0179 Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Filed Electronically with the Consent of the Attorney for Defendant Dated: January 3, 2006

3