No. 03-2625

Entergy Gulf States, et al. v. United States

Sep 21, 2016U.S. Court of Federal Claims
Contract disputeStandard Contract and spent nuclear fuelFor plaintiff

Key Facts

Plaintiff
Entergy Gulf States, et al.
Case number
No. 03-2625The listing writes it as 2625 C, which names every case in a consolidated group.
Decided
Sep 21, 2016
As the opinion prints it
No. 03-2625C

Official Record (govinfo)

Judge of record
Judge Mary Ellen Coster Williams
Nature of suit
Spent Nuclear Fuel (536)
Cause
civil

From U.S. court records published by the Government Publishing Office, matched to this decision only where the official record's issue date equals the decision date above. Open the official record.

Matter

Contract dispute

Matter is contract dispute, bid protest, or both. For a decision read from the curated listing it is the listing's own arrangement; for a decision read from the court's own feed it is the court's Nature of Suit where the official record holds one, and otherwise what the opinion's own opening states. Where the official record is available, the court's own Nature of Suit appears beside it.

Topics

Standard Contract and spent nuclear fuel
  • Listed under: Standard Contract; Spent Nuclear Fuel

Topics are an editorial grouping of the decisions read from the curated listing, not a classification by the court. A decision listed under several topics carries all of them. Bid protests carry no topic at all, and neither does a decision read from the court's own feed: no grouping was published for them.

Appearances

For plaintiff
Alexander D. Tomaszczuk
Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP
For the United States
Benjamin C. Mizer
United States Department of Justice
For the United States
Christopher J. Carney
United States Department of Justice
Opinion PDF (uscourts.gov) U.S. Court of Federal Claims opinions and ordersThe opinion document is hosted by the U.S. Court of Federal Claims itself, so it is an official copy, and the court's own opinions page is the source of record. The outcome, topics and appearances above are derived deterministically from the court's record and the opinion's own text.

Research This Decision

Create a free account to open this decision in the COFC workspace: the Decision Brief workflow, the filtered browser and the outcome insights over the whole corpus.

COFC Decision Brief

A Workflows Hub brief drafted from this opinion's own text and the authorities it cites, with every citation traced back to the page it came from.

Browse and Insights

The court's opinions filtered by matter, topic, judge, outcome and year, with the outcome dashboard whose every rate divides by merits rulings.

Full Opinion

Full text of the opinion2 pages, 4,158 characters, read from the court's own documentFiled Sep 21, 2016 Decision documentOfficial source: U.S. Court of Federal Claims opinions and ordersThe document states: No. 03-2625C

Cases cited

2 cases this opinion cites, grouped by the forum that decided each, in the order it first names them. 2 of them open at a publisher.

Read from the opinion's own words with no model involved: the party names and the citation are as the opinion prints them. A case cited to a reporter is not held here, so where it opens was confirmed one citation at a time against an outside database and is labelled as leaving this app; a citation that database could not place, or matched to more than one case, is shown without a link rather than guessed at. A case named without a citation of any kind carries nothing to read, so it is left out rather than guessed at, and this is a floor on what the opinion cites.

In the United States Court of Federal Claims

No. 03-2625C

(Filed: September 21, 2016)

ENTERGY GULF STATES, INC., and

ENTERGY GULF STATES

LOUISIANA, L.L.C.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

THE UNITED STATES,

Defendant.

The case caption as the opinion prints it. The box the court draws around it is a rule rather than text, so it is not repeated here; every word is.

For the plaintiff
Alexander D. Tomaszczuk
As the opinion writes it

Alexander D. Tomaszczuk, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, 1650 Tysons Boulevard, McLean, VA 22102, for Plaintiffs. Jay E. Silberg, and Clare Cavaliero Pincoski, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, 1200 17th Street NW, Washington, D.C. 20036, Of Counsel. L. Jager Smith, Jr., Jager Smith LLC, 1340 Echelon Parkway, Jackson, MS 39213, Of Counsel.

For the government
Benjamin C. Mizer
United States Department of Justice
As the opinion writes it

Benjamin C. Mizer, Robert E. Kirschman, Jr., Allison Kidd-Miller, and Eric P. Bruskin, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division, Commercial Litigation Branch, P.O. Box 480, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, D.C. 20044, for Defendant.

Christopher J. Carney
United States Department of Justice
As the opinion writes it

Christopher J. Carney, Christopher K. Wimbush, and Anand R. Sambhwani, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division, Commercial Litigation Branch, P.O. Box 480, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, D.C. 20044, Of Counsel. Jane K. Taylor, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of General Counsel, 100 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20585, Of Counsel. Spent Nuclear Fuel

Alexander D. Tomaszczuk, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, 1650 Tysons Boulevard, McLean, VA 22102, for Plaintiffs. Jay E. Silberg, and Clare Cavaliero Pincoski, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, 1200 17th Street NW, Washington, D.C. 20036, Of Counsel. L. Jager Smith, Jr., Jager Smith LLC, 1340 Echelon Parkway, Jackson, MS 39213, Of Counsel.

Benjamin C. Mizer, Robert E. Kirschman, Jr., Allison Kidd-Miller, and Eric P. Bruskin, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division, Commercial Litigation Branch, P.O. Box 480, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, D.C. 20044, for Defendant. Christopher J. Carney, Christopher K. Wimbush, and Anand R. Sambhwani, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division, Commercial Litigation Branch, P.O. Box 480, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, D.C. 20044, Of Counsel. Jane K. Taylor, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of General Counsel, 100 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20585, Of Counsel.

Spent Nuclear Fuel; Partial

Breach of Contract; Damages;

Causation; Cask Loading Costs.

________________________________________________________________________

Opinion and Order Entering Partial Judgment

________________________________________________________________________ WILLIAMS, Judge.

This opinion is a continuation of the Court’s prior decision in Entergy Gulf States, Inc. v. United States, 125 Fed. Cl. 678 (2016), which deferred one claim pending the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in System Fuels, Inc. v. United States, 818 F.3d 1302 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Following a 12-day trial beginning in 2015, this Court awarded Plaintiffs a partial judgment of $42,341,604 in damages for site modifications, payroll and materials loaders, and additional security. Entergy Gulf States, 125 Fed. Cl. at 718. The Court stayed consideration of Plaintiffs’ claim for cask loading costs, including fuel characterization, as the cask loading cost issue was under consideration by the Federal Circuit in System Fuels. Id. at 703.

The Federal Circuit issued its opinion in System Fuels on April 4, 2016, finding that because storage casks may not be used for transportation, “System Fuels was entitled under the law to all of the costs of loading these storage casks.” Sys. Fuels, 818 F.3d at 1306-07. The court stated that the expenses incurred for loading the storage casks “are expenses incurred entirely for storage due to the government’s breach,” and that because the storage casks cannot be used for transportation, “System Fuels will be required, if and when the government begins to comply, . . . to unload the spent nuclear fuel from these storage casks and reload it into suitable transportation casks provided by the government.” Id. at 1307.

Following the issuance of the Federal Circuit’s decision, this Court permitted supplemental briefing on Plaintiffs’ claims for cask loading and fuel characterization costs. Order (May 20, 2016). The parties filed their supplemental briefs on June 22, 2016.

In light of the Federal Circuit’s ruling in System Fuels, Defendant no longer contests the $5,143,279 in damages Plaintiffs claim for the preparation, packaging, and loading of spent nuclear fuel. See Sys. Fuels, 818 F.3d at 1306-07. The Court awards Plaintiffs $5,143,279 for this activity. The Court also awards Plaintiffs $7,930 in allegedly unsupported costs and $46,555 in payroll loader costs associated with the preparation, packaging, and loading of spent nuclear fuel. See Entergy Gulf States, 125 Fed. Cl. at 706-08.

Pursuant to Rule 54(b), there being no just reason for delay, the Clerk is directed to enter partial judgment for Plaintiffs in the amount of $5,197,764. This case shall remain open pending resolution of Plaintiffs’ claim for fuel characterization costs. Briefing on that claim will close on September 30, 2016.

s/Mary Ellen Coster Williams

MARY ELLEN COSTER WILLIAMS

Judge

This is a verbatim capture of the text layer of the court's own document in Entergy Gulf States, et al. v. United States. Nothing is summarized or reworded, and the sections run in the order the court wrote them. Two things the page shows are not repeated in the text: the rule the court draws around its caption, and the pagination furniture (the page numbers and the electronic filing stamp printed across the top of each page).

Related Decisions

Same Topic: Standard Contract and spent nuclear fuel

Same Year

Newsletter

New decisions every Monday

GovConDash Weekly lists the decisions GAO, the boards, the courts and SBA OHA released that week, alongside the FAR Overhaul deviations and proposed rules that reach every contractor. Free.

Free, weekly, and one click to unsubscribe. We send a confirmation email first. See our Privacy Policy.