Sierra Pacific Industries v. United States

Court of Claims

Sierra Pacific Industries v. United States

38 Cont. Cas. Fed. 76,345, 26 Cl. Ct. 420, 1992 U.S. Claims LEXIS 392, 1992 WL 135080

CourtUnited States Court of Claims

DecidedJune 17, 1992

DocketNo. 91-1331C

StatusPublished

This text of 38 Cont. Cas. Fed. 76,345 (Sierra Pacific Industries v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Court of Claims primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Sierra Pacific Industries v. United States, 38 Cont. Cas. Fed. 76,345, 26 Cl. Ct. 420, 1992 U.S. Claims LEXIS 392, 1992 WL 135080 (cc 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

SMITH, Chief Judge.

This dispute comes before the court on defendant’s motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment. Plaintiff, relying on 41 U.S.C. § 601, et seq. and 28 U.S.C. § 1491, is seeking refunds from the Forest Service of the United States Department of Agriculture for portions of the purchase price paid for various timber sales. At issue is whether plaintiff’s failure to comply with the contractual time limitation provision for the submission of claims bars such claims.

The majority of the parties’ arguments are discussed and resolved by this court’s opinion, issued today, in Stone Forest Industries, Inc. v. United States, 26 Cl.Ct. 410. For the reasons set forth in the Stone Forest opinion, thirty-one of plaintiff’s thirty-three claims are time-barred,¹ and the [421]*421court grants the defendant’s motion with respect to those claims.²

This opinion shall address two sales for which an alternative ground was given to bar the claim. Defendant argues that plaintiff’s claims on the Willow and Swift timber sales are barred because an express release was signed. These sales were closed pursuant to a timber sale closure agreement under the Federal Timber Contract Payment Modification Act. Under that agreement, the contracting parties were released from all rights and obligations under the contract. Plaintiff argues that the release is void because the regulation which mandated the release is invalid, citing Sierra Pacific Industries v. Lyng, 866 F.2d 1099 (9th Cir.1989).

This issue is identical to the Spike claim in the Stone Forest case. The court finds that it is not necessary to reach this issue because both the Willow and Swift claims are time-barred. With the Willow sale, the closure letter was sent March 7, 1986 and the claim was filed April 4,1991. With the Swift sale, the closure letter was sent March 11, 1986 and the claim was filed April 3, 1991. The claims for both sales were filed well beyond the 60 day time limitation. For the reasons set forth in Section I of the Stone Forest opinion, these claims are time-barred.

CONCLUSION

The court grants the government’s motion as it pertains to the time-barred claims. This opinion does not address those claims which are not time-barred. The parties shall file a joint status report within 60 days from the date of this opinion discussing further proceedings in this case.

¹

. The government contends that the following claims are time-barred:

Sale Contract # Date of Closure Date of Claim # of Days Late

Buck Springs 020933 11/17/83 04/03/91 2663

Buck Gulch 021303 11/18/85 04/03/91 1899

King Wallow 021428 04/04/88 04/03/91 1033

Barker Creek 021592 10/21/85 04/03/91 1929

Guard 015857 07/08/88 04/04/91 939

Big Canyon 021915 04/27/90 04/03/91 280

Devil 021972 03/01/90 04/03/91 337

Digger 022517 12/04/87 04/03/91 1155

Willow 016616 03/07/86 04/04/91 1793

Swift 022897 03/11/86 04/03/91 1788

Mill 023127 11/02/83 04/03/91 2648

[421]*421Virgin 050331 02/01/84 04/03/91 2557

Silversnake 050372 09/26/85 04/03/91 1954

Copper Flume 050471 11/17/83 04/03/91 2633

Eagle Helo 050497 06/02/91 04/03/91 1705

Butter Meadows 050604 09/01/87 04/03/91 1249

Hollowpine 051812 11/20/85 04/03/91 1899

Prairie 051485 10/21/87 04/04/91 1200

Highway 36 051099 10/31/84 04/03/91 2284

Big Creek 051107 01/26/87 04/03/91 1467

Road 051592 01/23/88 04/04/91 740

Hank 051659 08/01/90 04/04/91 185

Lightning 051766 01/09/91 04/03/91 24

Sulphur Sani 051230 02/01/85 04/03/91 2191

Millerade 051289 03/26/86 04/03/91 1773

Horse 052020 01/18/89 04/04/91 745

Butter Caves 051461 04/20/87 04/03/91 1383

Wilson Point 051487 03/23/88 04/03/91 1045

Friend 051545 07/12/88 04/03/91 934

Buddy 052541 01/18/89 04/04/91 745

East Resale 052616 03/17/88 04/04/91 1052

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION

SMITH, Chief Judge.

This dispute comes before the court on defendant’s motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment. Plaintiff, relying on 41 U.S.C. § 601, et seq. and 28 U.S.C. § 1491, is seeking refunds from the Forest Service of the United States Department of Agriculture for portions of the purchase price paid for various timber sales. At issue is whether plaintiff’s failure to comply with the contractual time limitation provision for the submission of claims bars such claims.

The majority of the parties’ arguments are discussed and resolved by this court’s opinion, issued today, in Stone Forest Industries, Inc. v. United States, 26 Cl.Ct. 410. For the reasons set forth in the Stone Forest opinion, thirty-one of plaintiff’s thirty-three claims are time-barred,¹ and the [421]*421court grants the defendant’s motion with respect to those claims.²

This opinion shall address two sales for which an alternative ground was given to bar the claim. Defendant argues that plaintiff’s claims on the Willow and Swift timber sales are barred because an express release was signed. These sales were closed pursuant to a timber sale closure agreement under the Federal Timber Contract Payment Modification Act. Under that agreement, the contracting parties were released from all rights and obligations under the contract. Plaintiff argues that the release is void because the regulation which mandated the release is invalid, citing Sierra Pacific Industries v. Lyng, 866 F.2d 1099 (9th Cir.1989).

This issue is identical to the Spike claim in the Stone Forest case. The court finds that it is not necessary to reach this issue because both the Willow and Swift claims are time-barred. With the Willow sale, the closure letter was sent March 7, 1986 and the claim was filed April 4,1991. With the Swift sale, the closure letter was sent March 11, 1986 and the claim was filed April 3, 1991. The claims for both sales were filed well beyond the 60 day time limitation. For the reasons set forth in Section I of the Stone Forest opinion, these claims are time-barred.

CONCLUSION

The court grants the government’s motion as it pertains to the time-barred claims. This opinion does not address those claims which are not time-barred. The parties shall file a joint status report within 60 days from the date of this opinion discussing further proceedings in this case.

¹

. The government contends that the following claims are time-barred:

Sale Contract # Date of Closure Date of Claim # of Days Late

Buck Springs 020933 11/17/83 04/03/91 2663

Buck Gulch 021303 11/18/85 04/03/91 1899

King Wallow 021428 04/04/88 04/03/91 1033

Barker Creek 021592 10/21/85 04/03/91 1929

Guard 015857 07/08/88 04/04/91 939

Big Canyon 021915 04/27/90 04/03/91 280

Devil 021972 03/01/90 04/03/91 337

Digger 022517 12/04/87 04/03/91 1155

Willow 016616 03/07/86 04/04/91 1793

Swift 022897 03/11/86 04/03/91 1788

Mill 023127 11/02/83 04/03/91 2648

[421]*421Virgin 050331 02/01/84 04/03/91 2557

Silversnake 050372 09/26/85 04/03/91 1954

Copper Flume 050471 11/17/83 04/03/91 2633

Eagle Helo 050497 06/02/91 04/03/91 1705

Butter Meadows 050604 09/01/87 04/03/91 1249

Hollowpine 051812 11/20/85 04/03/91 1899

Prairie 051485 10/21/87 04/04/91 1200

Highway 36 051099 10/31/84 04/03/91 2284

Big Creek 051107 01/26/87 04/03/91 1467

Road 051592 01/23/88 04/04/91 740

Hank 051659 08/01/90 04/04/91 185

Lightning 051766 01/09/91 04/03/91 24

Sulphur Sani 051230 02/01/85 04/03/91 2191

Millerade 051289 03/26/86 04/03/91 1773

Horse 052020 01/18/89 04/04/91 745

Butter Caves 051461 04/20/87 04/03/91 1383

Wilson Point 051487 03/23/88 04/03/91 1045

Friend 051545 07/12/88 04/03/91 934

Buddy 052541 01/18/89 04/04/91 745

East Resale 052616 03/17/88 04/04/91 1052

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

38 Cont. Cas. Fed. 76,345, 26 Cl. Ct. 420, 1992 U.S. Claims LEXIS 392, 1992 WL 135080, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sierra-pacific-industries-v-united-states-cc-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack