Landgraf v. United States, No. 20-66C (Fed. Cl. Dec. 1, 2020)

In this companion case to Landgraf v. United States, No. 20-66C, 2020 WL 2466138 (Fed. Cl. May 13, 2020), the Court granted a second motion to dismiss by NRCS, in which the agency successfully convinced the court that there was no binding contract between NRCS and Landgraf that obligated NRCS on specific brush removal actions. Instead, the document at issue was a preliminary outline of the brush removal work that NRCS would perform, along the lines of a planning document, and there was no formal offer and acceptance. Nor did the easement deed, which was a valid contract, incorporate the terms of this earlier document.

• State: Texas

• Procedural Status: Case concluded.

• Date: 2020

• Keywords: Contract law; damages; frivolous; invasive species; natural disaster; negligence; neighbors; nuisance; remedy; rescission; restoration; standing; termination; tort; vegetation management; wetlands easement; Wetlands Reserve Program.

• Summary of Facts and Issues: In 2013, Larry Landgraf and two of his neighbors entered into Wetlands Reserve Program conservation easements with the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). The easements were accompanied by contracts to implement wetlands restoration activities in order to establish habitat for whooping cranes and other birds. One key provision of these contracts required the “removal” of various invasive plants. In May 2017, NRCS instructed a contractor to uproot these invasives but to leave them in place on the properties. In August 2017, Hurricane Harvey’s storm-surge washed the uprooted brush from a neighbor’s easement property onto Landgraf’s property. Landgraf alleged that the uprooted brush from his neighbor’s property rendered two-thirds of his own property impassable and useless pending removal of the brush. Landgraf first sued in federal district court for negligence, which that court construed as a suit under the Federal Tort Claims Act. Following dismissal of his tort claims, Landgraf sued the NRCS in the Court of Federal Claims under the Tucker Act for breach of contract. The Tucker Act authorizes claims that are founded on an express or implied contract with the United States and do not sound in tort. The NRCS moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.