United States v. Suntip Company, United States of America v. Hampton Tree Farms, Inc.

Good Law
40 Cont. Cas. Fed. 76,925·82 F.3d 1468·96 Daily Journal DAR 5198·1996 WL 224493·34 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 1367
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMay 6, 199693-36147, 94-35977California6,321 words

Opinion

Opinion

Canby, J.

These cases arise from disputes over several federal timber sale contracts entered many years ago, separately, by Hampton Tree Farms, Inc., and Suntip Company. The controversy between those two firms and the government has passed through several tribunals and acquired an exquisitely byzantine complexity. The present actions, which we may hope will be the last, were brought by the government to enforce decisions of its contracting officers holding Hampton and Suntip liable for breach of their contracts.

Hampton and Suntip asserted two defenses that are the subject of these appeals. First, they argued that the government’s claims were barred under the doctrine of res judicata because they should have been asserted as compulsory counterclaims in earlier litigation brought by Hampton and Suntip. Second, they contended that the government’s claims were barred by the six-year statute of limitations, 28 U.S.C. § 2415 .

In the Hampton action, the district court held that nine of the government’s eleven claims were barred by limitations, and that the remaining two were barred for failure to assert them as compulsory counterclaims in earlier litigation. In the Suntip action, the district…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.