You're viewing Docket Item 11 from the case ST. BERNARD PARISH GOVERNMENT v. USA. View the full docket and case details.

Download this document:




Case 1:05-cv-01119-SGB Document 11 Filed 01/17/2006 Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS

ROCCO TOMMASEO, and
THOMAS TOMMASEO, and
ROCKY AND CARLO, INC., and
STEVEN BORDELON, husband of,
and CYNTHIA BORDELON and,
STEVE’S MOBILE HOME & R.V. REPAIR,
INC.


)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
__________________________________________)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiffs,

v.

Defendant.

No. 05-1119L

Hon. Susan G. Braden

ANSWER OF THE UNITED STATES

Comes now the United States of America, Defendant herein and files its answer to the
First Amended Complaint herein and would respectfully show unto the Court the following:

1. The allegations of Paragraph 1 of the First Amended Complaint state conclusions of
law to which no response is required. Defendant admits that the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491,
is the principal statute conferring jurisdiction on this Court.

2. Defendant is without knowledge as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 2 and

said allegations are therefore denied.

3. Defendant admits the allegations of Paragraph 3.

4. Defendant admits the allegations of Paragraph 4.

5. Defendant admits the allegations of Paragraph 5.



6. Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph 6.

7. Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph 7.

8. Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph 8.

9. Defendant admits the allegations of Paragraph 9.

10. Defendant is without knowledge as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 10,

Case 1:05-cv-01119-SGB Document 11 Filed 01/17/2006 Page 2 of 3

and said allegations are therefore denied.

11. Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph 11.

12. Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph 12.

13. Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph 13.

14. Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph 14.

15. In response to Paragraph 15, Defendant realleges its response to the Paragraphs in

the First Amended Complaint cited therein.

16. The allegations of Paragraph 16 state conclusions of law to which no response is

required. Defendant denies that there has been a permanent taking of Plaintiffs’ property.

17. Defendant is without knowledge as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 17,

and said allegations are therefore denied.

18. In response to Paragraph 18, Defendant realleges its response to the Paragraphs in

the First Amended Complaint cited therein.

19. Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph 19. Defendant denies that there has

been a temporary taking of Plaintiffs’ property.

20. Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph 20. Defendant denies that there has

been a permanent taking of Plaintiffs’ property.

21. In response to Paragraph 21, Defendant realleges its response to the Paragraphs in

the First Amended Complaint cited therein.

22. Defendant admits the allegation in Paragraph 22 that Hurricane Rita struck a portion

of the Louisiana Coast on or about September 24, 2005. Defendant denies the remaining
allegations of Paragraph 22.

23. Defendant is without knowledge as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 23,

and said allegations are therefore denied.

24. Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph 24.

25. The allegations of Paragraph 25 are conclusions of law to which no response is
required. Defendant denies that there has been a taking of Plaintiffs’ property for a flowage
easement.

26. In response to Paragraph 26, Defendant realleges its response to the Paragraphs in

the First Amended Complaint cited therein.

Case 1:05-cv-01119-SGB Document 11 Filed 01/17/2006 Page 3 of 3

27. In response to Paragraph 27, Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs do not constitute
proper representatives of an alleged class and that no such class should be found to exist.

28. Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph 28.

29. Defendant is without knowledge as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 29 and

said allegations are therefore denied.

Defendant denies that Plaintiffs are entitled to any of the relief sought and alleges that
Judgment should be entered in favor of the United States dismissing this case and granting the
United States such other relief as the Court deems appropriate.

All allegations of the First Amended Complaint which have not been specifically

admitted or otherwise answered are hereby denied.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

1. Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

2. Plaintiffs’ claim is barred by the applicable statute of limitations, 28 U.S.C. § 2501.

3. This Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claim because it sounds in

Tort.

Respectfully Submitted, this the 17th Day of January, 2006.

SUE ELLEN WOOLDRIDGE
Assistant Attorney General
Environment and Natural Resources Division

s/ Fred R. Disheroon by Mark T. Romley
Fred R. Disheroon, Special Litigation Counsel
Mark T. Romley, Trial Attorney
Natural Resources Section
Environment and Natural Resources Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D St. N.W., Room 3022
Washington D.C. 20004
(202) 616 9649
Fax: (202) 616 9667