MAY 4, 2010 – Washington, DC – Arent Fox LLP today announced a major victory for its clients in a closely-followed case involving landowners suing the federal government as a class in a takings dispute over a federal program to convert railroad lines into recreational trails.

Legal observers have noted this case could dramatically change the rules for plaintiffs who file big-money class actions against the federal government.

In the much-anticipated decision, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit unanimously overturned a lower court decision that class-action tolling did not apply in the Court of Federal Claims. The US Court of Federal Claims is a court of national jurisdiction with jurisdiction to hear all claims against the federal government which are greater than $10,000.

The opinion in Bright, et. al. v. United States was written by Judge Alvin A. Schall, joined by Chief Judge Paul R. Michel and Judge Randall R. Rader.

In the lower court proceedings, Judge Christine Odell Cook Miller of the US Court of Federal Claims had accepted what she described as the government’s “draconian” argument. The Justice Department claimed the statute of limitations continued to run even after the lawsuit was filed and that citizens participating in the case as class members would have their otherwise legitimate constitutional claims for compensation denied. Judge Miller recognized that the government’s argument would effectively eliminate the use of class actions in cases brought against the federal government. The Department of Justice touted its lower court win as one of its significant accomplishments of 2009.

The plaintiffs appealed to the Federal Circuit, which broadly rejected the government’s arguments and reversed the lower court’s decision. The appeals court ruled that once a class-action complaint was filed, the statute of limitations was “tolled.” The court went on to affirm the value of the class-action procedure for bringing claims against the federal government. “In our view, such a result is most consistent with the objectives which class action procedures are meant to achieve.” The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals wrote that the lower court’s decision would create a class-action system that was “so cumbersome and unwieldy” that it would “frustrate the purpose” of avoiding multiple individual lawsuits. “In short, we think that, all other considerations being equal, the laudable goal of avoiding 'multiplicity of actions' should prevail,” wrote Judge Schall.

While the Bright case involved Missouri and Kansas citizens’ constitutional right to be paid compensation for the government’s taking of their land, the Federal Circuit’s opinion was broadly written and will be a landmark precedent protecting the right of citizens with claims against the federal government. Several pending class-action cases against the federal government were stayed to await today’s decision by the Federal Circuit.

Thor Hearne, a partner with Arent Fox in Washington DC, joined by associates, Meghan Largent and Lindsay Brinton, represented the class of Missouri and Kansas property owners in their appeal to the Federal Circuit. Hearne argued the case in December. The National Federation of Federal Employees represented by the Howrey law firm and the Klamath Irrigation District represented by former Assistant United States Attorney General Roger J. Marzulla each joined as amicus curiae in support of the plaintiffs.

Hearne characterized the decision as, “Well written and thoughtfully considered.”

“The Federal Circuit today reaffirmed the purpose for which President Lincoln originally proposed the Court of Federal Claims – the prompt, fair administration of justice between a citizen and their own government,” said Mr. Hearne. “The appropriate use of the class-action procedure will allow more efficient and fairer resolution of claims against the federal government.”

The slip opinion issued May 3, 2010, is available at here.

Audio of the oral argument held on December 11, 2009 may be heard by clicking here.