Aluminum Shapes, LLC v. United States


In the United States Court of Federal Claims No. 18-548C (E-Filed: October 17, 2018) ) ALUMINUM SHAPES, LLC, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Contract; Settlement Agreement in v. ) Civil Enforcement Context; Lack of ) Contract-Based Jurisdiction. THE UNITED STATES, ) ) Defendant. ) ) Thomas S. Biemer, Philadelphia, PA, for plaintiff. Christie Callahan Comerford, Erik L. Coccia, Margret Spitzer Persico, Philadelphia, PA, and Matthew W. Horn, Chicago, IL, of counsel. Robert C. Bigler, Trial Attorney, with whom were Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Robert E. Kirschman, Jr., Director, Tara K. Hogan, Assistant Director, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for defendant. OPINION CAMPBELL-SMITH, Judge. The court has before it defendant’s motion to dismiss, ECF No. 7, which is brought pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims (RCFC). Plaintiff filed an opposition brief, ECF No. 10, to which the government replied, ECF No. 11. Oral argument was neither requested by the parties nor deemed necessary by the court. The only issue before the court is whether a settlement agreement, which arose in the context of a civil enforcement action brought by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) of the United States Department of Labor (DOL), gives rise to contract-based jurisdiction over plaintiff’s claims in this court. For the reasons stated below, the settlement agreement between DOL and plaintiff Aluminum Shapes, LLC (Aluminum Shapes) does not provide this court with jurisdiction over contract-based claims. Accordingly, defendant’s motion to dismiss pursuant to RCFC 12(b)(1) is GRANTED. I. Background Aluminum Shapes operates an aluminum extrusion facility in New Jersey. Compl., ECF No. 1 at 2. In 2015, an OSHA inspection of the facility resulted in $308,000 in fines assessed against plaintiff. Id. Plaintiff contested the fines, and the parties negotiated a settlement which was accepted by the Chief Judge of the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (Commission). Id. at 3. As part of the settlement agreement, Aluminum Shapes paid $170,000 in fines. Id. Plaintiff contends that OSHA thereafter violated certain elements of the settlement agreement. Id. at 4. The contract breaches alleged in the complaint include an improper inspection of Aluminum Shapes’ facility by OSHA in January 2017, and an improper assessment of fines in the absence of good faith negotiations. Id. at 4-5. New fines were assessed against Aluminum Shapes in the amount of $1,922,895. Id. at 5. In this suit, Aluminum Shapes alleges one count of breach of contract, and another count of breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Id. at 5-7. Aluminum Shapes seeks damages sustained as a result of the breach of contract, including, apparently, any fines that plaintiff may ultimately pay for the OSHA violations discovered during the January 2017 inspection.1 See id. at 6 (describing the damages flowing from the breach as including OSHA fines that may be paid by plaintiff, and the costs of defending against the assessment of those fines). The court ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals