Free Motion to Dismiss - Rule 12(b)(1) - District Court of Federal Claims - federal


File Size: 38.8 kB
Pages: 4
Date: August 17, 2007
File Format: PDF
State: federal
Category: District
Author: unknown
Word Count: 497 Words, 4,255 Characters
Page Size: Letter (8 1/2" x 11")
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/cofc/22248/7-2.pdf

Download Motion to Dismiss - Rule 12(b)(1) - District Court of Federal Claims ( 38.8 kB)


Preview Motion to Dismiss - Rule 12(b)(1) - District Court of Federal Claims
Case 1:07-cv-00316-JFM

Document 7-2

Filed 08/17/2007

Page 1 of 4

No. 07-316C (Judge James E. Merow)

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS

BILTMORE FOREST BROADCASTING FM, INC., Plaintiff, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant.

DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT, OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

PETER D. KEISLER Assistant Attorney General JEANNE E. DAVIDSON Director MARK A. MELNICK Assistant Director OF COUNSEL: Grey Pash Office of General Counsel Federal Communications Commission 445 12th Street, SW Washington, D.C. 20554 MARLA T. CONNEELY Trial Attorney Commercial Litigation Branch Civil Division Department of Justice Attn: Classification Unit 8th Floor 1100 L Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530 Tel: (202)305-3689 Fax: (202)305-7643 Attorneys for Defendant

August 17, 2007

Case 1:07-cv-00316-JFM

Document 7-2

Filed 08/17/2007

Page 2 of 4

TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE(S) STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES ....................................... 1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE ......................................... 2 I. II. Nature Of The Case .................................. 2 Statement Of Facts .................................. 2

ARGUMENT ...................................................... 4 I. II. Legal Standards ..................................... 4 This Court Lacks Subject Matter Jurisdiction To Entertain Biltmore's Claims Because They Arise Under the Communications Act, And Congress Has Vested The District Of Columbia Circuit With Jurisdiction Over Those Claims.....................................5

III. Even If This Court Possesses Jurisdiction To Entertain Biltmore's Claims, Which It Does Not, Biltmore's Claims Are Barred By The Doctrine Of Collateral Estoppel...................................9 CONCLUSION ................................................... 13

i

Case 1:07-cv-00316-JFM

Document 7-2

Filed 08/17/2007

Page 3 of 4

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES PAGE(S) Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) ...................................... 5 Biltmore Forest Broadcasting FM, Inc. v. Federal Communications Comm'n, 540 U.S. 981 (2003) ...................................... 7 Biltmore Forest Broadcasting FM, Inc. v. Federal Communications Comm'n, 321 F.3d 155 (D.C. Cir. 2003) ....................... passim Bingaman v. Dep't of Treasury, 127 F.3d 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997) .......................... Blonder-Tongue Lab, Inc. v. University of Ill. Found., 402 U.S. 313 (1971) ..................................... Booth v. United States, 990 F.2d 617 (Fed. Cir. 1993) ........................... Catellus Development Corp. v. United States, 31 Fed. Cl. 399 (1994) .................................. Folden v. United States, 379 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2004) .....................

9

9

4

5

passim

In re Jerre M. Freeman, 30 F.3d 1459 (Fed. Cir 1994) ........................... Jet, Inc. v. Sewage Aeration Sys., 223 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2000) .......................... Maniere v. United States, 31 Fed. Cl. 410 (1994) .................................. Mingus Constructors, Inc. v. United States, 812 F.2d 1387 (Fed. Cir. 1987) ..........................

10

9

5

5

ii

Case 1:07-cv-00316-JFM

Document 7-2

Filed 08/17/2007

Page 4 of 4

Montana v. United States, 440 U.S. 147 (1979) ..................................... Morris v. United States, 33 Fed. Cl. 733 (1995) .............................

9

passim

Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore, 439 U.S. 322 (1979) .................................... Ralph Larson & Son, Inc. v. United States, 17 Cl. Ct. 39 (1989) .................................... Reynolds v. Army and Air Force Exch. Serv., 846 F.2d 746 (Fed. Cir. 1988) ........................... Scheur v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232 (1974) ..................................... United States v. Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co., 933 F.2d 996 (Fed. Cir. 1991) ...........................

10

5

5

5

4

STATUTES 28 U.S.C. § 1491 (a)(1) ...................................... 47 U.S.C. § 309 .............................................. 47 U.S.C. § 402 ......................................... 47 C.F.R. § 1.2105 ...................................... 47 C.F.R. 73.5002(b) .................................... 7 3

passim 11, 12 10, 12

iii