USA Petrochem Corp. v. United States

4 Cl. Ct. 345, 1984 U.S. Claims LEXIS 1512
CourtUnited States Court of Claims
DecidedJanuary 23, 1984
DocketNo. 643-83C
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 4 Cl. Ct. 345 (USA Petrochem Corp. 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
USA Petrochem Corp. v. United States, 4 Cl. Ct. 345, 1984 U.S. Claims LEXIS 1512 (cc 1984).

Opinion

ORDER

MARGOLIS, Judge.

Plaintiff USA Petrochem Corporation has moved under RUSCC 14(a)(1) for issuance of notices on the following third parties: Apex Oil Company, Coastal States Trading, Tosco Corporation, LaJet, Inc., Crysen Trading and Marketing, Inc., Atlantic Rich-field Corporation and Standard Oil Company of Ohio. Plaintiff contends that if it is found liable on defendant’s counterclaim, then, in another suit, the third parties will be liable to plaintiff. Therefore, plaintiff contends that the third parties have an interest in the suit and should be issued notices. Plaintiff concedes that this Court has no jurisdiction over the third parties and does not seek a money judgment against any of the third parties here. Defendant contends that notice under 14(a) cannot be issued unless the Court has jurisdiction over the third parties. This Court grants the plaintiff’s motion.

The facts as alleged are as follows. In October 1980, plaintiff entered into contract No. DLA600-81-C-5005 with the Defense Fuel Supply Center. Plaintiff agreed to supply to the defendant approximately two million barrels of Alaska North Slope crude oil (ANS oil), f.o.b. destination, at the Department of Energy terminal at St. James, Louisiana. In exchange, plaintiff was to receive from the defendant’s refinery at Elk Hills, California an equal amount of Navy Petroleum Reserve crude oil (NPR oil).

From November 1980 through February 1981, plaintiff delivered approximately two million barrels of ANS oil. In exchange, plaintiff received an equal amount of NPR oil. The ANS oil provided by plaintiff was obtained from various suppliers — the parties to be noticed — who delivered the oil directly to defendant on a “net out-turn” basis. The amount delivered was measured by using tank strapping tables provided to the plaintiff by the defendant.

Plaintiff was notified in November 1981, for the first time, that the tank strapping tables furnished by the United States were inaccurate. In October 1982, the contracting officer determined that the defendant had received approximately 10,000 barrels less than originally measured. Defendant, therefore, was entitled to recover $364,-948.03 — the cost of the oil. Plaintiff paid $5,000 under protest and without prejudice and filed this suit to recover the $5,000. Defendant has counterclaimed for the balance.

Under RUSCC 14(a)(1), the Court may issue notice to any person “who is alleged to have an interest in the subject matter” of the suit. The Court of Claims, in interpreting the similar Court of Claims Rule 41(a), stated:

This rule requires no jurisdictional evaluation prior to the issuance of notice, but merely requires that a person “appear” to have an interest. It is well settled that a determination that a person shall receive “notice” under Rule 41(a) is not equivalent to a decision that this court has subject matter jurisdiction, may treat the noticed person as a party in interest, or [347]*347could render a judgment against that person.

Uram v. United States, 216 Ct.Cl. 418, 420 (1978).

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

Related

Allied Oil & Supply, Inc. v. United States
60 Fed. Cl. 223 (Federal Claims, 2004)
Bird v. United States
51 Fed. Cl. 536 (Federal Claims, 2002)
Rockwell International Corp. v. United States
31 Fed. Cl. 536 (Federal Claims, 1994)
Oak Forest, Inc. v. United States
26 Cl. Ct. 1397 (Court of Claims, 1992)
RSH Constructors, Inc. v. United States
36 Cont. Cas. Fed. 75,813 (Court of Claims, 1990)
Del-Rio Drilling Programs, Inc. v. United States
17 Cl. Ct. 844 (Court of Claims, 1989)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
4 Cl. Ct. 345, 1984 U.S. Claims LEXIS 1512, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/usa-petrochem-corp-v-united-states-cc-1984.