Free Reply to Response to Motion - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case 1:98-cv-00488-SGB

Document 250-2 No. 98-488C (Judge Braden)

Filed 09/01/2004

Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT, Plaintiff, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant.

DEFENDANT'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT REGARDING PLAINTIFF'S RECOVERY OF FUTURE OR PROSPECTIVE DAMAGES ______________________________________________________________________________ PETER D. KEISLER Assistant Attorney General DAVID M. COHEN Director HAROLD D. LESTER, JR. Assistant Director OF COUNSEL: JANE K. TAYLOR Office of General Counsel U.S. Department of Energy 1000 Independence Ave., S.W. Washington, DC 20585 RUSSELL A. SHULTIS Trial Attorney Commercial Litigation Branch Civil Division Department of Justice Attn: Classification Unit 1100 L Street, NW, 8th Floor Washington, D.C. 20530 Telephone: (202) 305-7571 Facsimile: (202) 307-2503 Attorneys for Defendant

September 1, 2004

Case 1:98-cv-00488-SGB

Document 250-2

Filed 09/01/2004

Page 2 of 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................... i TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ........................................................................................................ ii DEFENDANT'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT REGARDING PLAINTIFF'S RECOVERY OF FUTURE OR PROSPECTIVE DAMAGES ................................................................................. 1 ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................................ 1 I. ALL APPLICABLE COURT DECISIONS SUPPORT THE CONCLUSION THAT FUTURE DAMAGES CANNOT BE AWARDED UPON A PARTIAL BREACH OF CONTRACT CLAIM .................................................................... 1 A. SMUD Has Not Identified A Single Case In Which A Court Awarded A Plaintiff Future Damages In Response To A Partial Breach Claim ....................................................................... 1 Courts Have Precluded An Award Of Future Damages In Response To A Partial Breach Claim ................................................... 8

B. II.

IN SEEKING FUTURE DAMAGES, SMUD IS ASKING THIS COURT TO CONFLICT WITH THE RESTATEMENT, DESPITE THE ABSENCE OF ANY AUTHORITY IN SUPPORT OF ITS DAMAGES REQUEST ................. 9 SMUD'S SUGGESTION THAT IT SHOULD RECOVER FUTURE DAMAGES WOULD CREATE A NEW LEGAL DOCTRINE OF "ANTICIPATORY PARTIAL BREACH," WHICH OTHERWISE DOES NOT EXIST ...................................................................................................... 12

III.

CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................... 16

i

Case 1:98-cv-00488-SGB

Document 250-2

Filed 09/01/2004

Page 3 of 3

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES Ammex, Inc. v. United States, 334 F.3d 1052 (Fed. Cir. 2003) .......................................................................................... 9 Christopher Village, L.P. v. United States, 360 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2004) .......................................................................................... 9 City of Fairfax, Va. v. Washington Metro. Area Transit Auth., 582 F.2d 1321 (4th Cir. 1978) ................................................................................... 12, 13 Coughlin v. Blair, 41 Cal. 2d 587, 262 P.2d 305 (1953) ................................................................................. 9 First Nat'l State Bank of N.J. v. Commonwealth Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 610 F.2d 164 (3d Cir. 1979) ....................................................................................... 2, 6, 7 Guntert v. City of Stockton, 55 Cal. App. 3d 131, 126 Cal. Rptr. 690 (1976) ...................................................... passim Hall v. Allstate Ins. Co., 880 F.2d 394 (11th Cir. 1989) ......................................................................................... 13 Hansen Bancorp, Inc. v. United States, 367 F.3d 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ........................................................................................ 10 Indiana Michigan Power Co. v. United States, 60 Fed. Cl. 639 (2004) (Fed. Cir.) ........................................................................... passim Northern States Power Co. v. United States Dep't of Energy, 128 F.3d 754 (D.C. Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1015 (1998) .................................. 6 Tennessee Valley Authority v. United States, 60 Fed. Cl. 665 (2004) ................................................................................................. 9, 11 Yankee Atomic Electric Co. v. United States, No. 98-126C, 2004 WL 1535688 (Fed. Cl. June 28, 2004) ....................................... 2, 3, 4 Young Engineers, Inc. v. United States Int'l Trade Comm'n, 721 F.2d 1305 (Fed. Cir. 1983) .......................................................................................... 9

ii