argument is twenty dash one thousand nine hundred and nine taylor energy company versus department of interior mr ludden whenever you're ready mclean court robert lonmin representing the department of the interior the district court to prove live unary question one does the fact the way things went down here do you think that was a function it's my understanding that the district court the other side did what it did and the district court ruled before it had the review has to be read together whereas with the talk around act and the case has the following one or the other side of the line and and we say here the answer is because it's clear that there is no adequate remedy available and their court a federal only can be moved forward and the and the district court under the c p a and for example the course decision suburban mortgage says when you're sorting out the sort of the sort of problem you should start without a quick remedy  guess why the government decided not to argue that jurisdictional point in that earlier decision what i never understood and the st case is why you didn't argue there that regardless of either the statue  limitations or the issue with respect to the governing law why you didn't argue that it doesn't matter that none of it matters because the i p l a decisions have binding effect on related lawsuits before the claims court why shouldn't that have been the end of the increase in that case and in the prior cases september case you know the between the highly decision that was that occurred before their case and their legal claims was a little i think less less clear and direct their claim for seeking a much broader remedy and ending the agreements the clear even impossible under louisiana state law and that that ran into lots of trouble and difficulty beyond simply the high d l a decision that was there here we have a perfect you know there clearly seeking the complaint is really clear on this that they're seeking to reverse set aside now making it seems to me is equally applicable to that case but the government never in fact neither party ever raised a question answers diction what am i to make of that well i think the government did in the in the c s t in that case raises the issue of jurisdiction but i but the reason i think it's not in the same exact same posture as here and not as particularly as clear as this case could have argued was that i p l a decision should have been considered binding regardless of whether it was an actual appeal from right that the connection here is clear that this is cable television association and many others and exclude that you can't treat a presidential something a court has and say so here there was no statement about that or about that issue and there's nothing presidential in that and then opinion in or or in the in this court has to temper opinion except for the fact that this court makes it very clear that i feel a decision is controlling absent a reversal in the district court and so that's that's the avenue here taylor energy should be pursuing questions for me about it but i take it you don't need to get into it and how to quit remedy here is easier and largely answered by the september twenty twentieth's and this and you know even the statute thank you your honor and your own is the issue here is straightforward and incredibly narrow it's simply whether killer energies to contract claims that seek specific monetarily should be before the court or federal claims we would suggest both the griffin expiration case the suburban mortgage case the mr ok it's all very interesting you're actually arguing the earlier case decisions were subsequently affirmed by the i b l a the lying upon contract construction principles and adjudicating contract disputes taylor energy then filed this action in the united states decision under the administrative procedure act is that is that in my reading says that you agree that i'm reading from yes your honor certainly is and i agree with you entirely this is simple and straightforward you are seeking judicial review of the i p l a decision under the administrative procedure act why are you talking about contract law your honor at the time that proceeding was filed in december of twenty eight neither judge long neither judge firestone in the the c d c nor this course a firm have decided the issue of subject matter jurisdiction in fact in front of judge firestone the government raised in that case judge player three issues one was a special limitations one was a primary jurisdiction and one was a monetary mandating issue to recognize that at the time that lawsuit was filed we have not yet have the guidance and as you recognize judge in the suburban mortgage says the line between tucker us jurisdiction and a jurisdiction and whether the limitations in seven o two and seven o four apply is not always clear so at the time we find that the council was clear before it was clear before the supreme court's decision bowen and since you have been kind enough to remember suburban mortgage i pointed out in suburban mortgage that the way to look at these cases  not where the money is or what the money is fun to simply ask what court has jurisdiction subject matter jurisdiction under the law now in the previous taylor jurisdiction was never raised by either party so that the court had no reason to get itself into it what the court decided was a contract issue was it as fac federal contract provides no precedent for this case because on page two of your very own grief you say you're seeking to dish a review of the i'd be a decision on the ministre to proceed to wreck that statute is totally controlling i pointed that out in suburban and i don't think there's any real question about it is there on clear i'm sorry yes go ahead because we were on clear as to whether or not the issue that had been teed up in front of the court of federal claims in front of judge barnes go on a twelve b one is how that he she was going to work out this case coming out of a different high bill a decision you know recognizing that this case comes out of a decision that specifically talks about conference principles and specific the court and the only argument that the government could have made and should have made was that even if you didn't appeal that decision that implicit in was was binding on both of federal claims and on us and and at least as to any issues that were covered in blood that would have been true so this is a totally different circumstance we could not rule and say that jurisdiction since that i believe opinion that dealt with a regulatory departure as you point out was not appealed that was not before judge barton stone but what we have here your honor is a situation where you look at what the obviously did and we would suggest on this seven o two dollars seventy cents for the i'm afraid procedure act in those limitations there is not a special rule dealing with final agency options coming out of the billing they treat all agents administrators agency actions the same under the we would also point out that both the gryphon expiration case and i understand it's coming out of the federal bench circuit the amoco case both of those cases didn't seal with ideally decisions so the suggestion with all respect your honor that this court or the court or federal claims has to blindly except what the i really does it really depends taylor energy is seeking more than what the courts of called a naked monetary judgment in this case is simply not true if you look at paragraph nine hundred and thirty eight and more importantly i guess the wherefore clause in the proposed amended complaint we split physically asked for monetary damages it is very narrow it's not a long term change it's real i would just want to see why would you want to be in a court that is found on on the ma well wait a minute wasn't there a decision by an agency that decided that very question and is that not before me and what your answer to that the a decision that addressed that specific issue rely itself in the opinion on contract construction principles when they did that recognizing that the narrow relief that was sought in that proceeding you know that i would suggest to you that the court or federal claims number one not only have proper talk or act your fiction but number two must look at the underlying substance of the claim you pointed that out in suburban and proper interpretation but that's really for the merits and the the gryphon case indicated that those bootstrap issues from my perspective your honor is really a merits issue we will point out when we're in front of the court or federal claims why it is that the i believe decision dealing with this issue on contract issues does not need to be blindly followed by the court or federal claims now i'm not sure you're honest if it was judge o'malley or judge pros because i wear hearing aids but i would like to respond to the question of why would i want to be back in front of the court of federal claims since i already had an unhappy result of there the answer is very simply this needs to be in front of the court that high as a proper subject matter jurisdiction if we do we do in the eastern district down here particularly with the amoco opinion and now with em case and a number of supreme court cases order to get to whitwell be six issue you have to already recognize that there is subject matter  in this decision based upon contract construction principles we would we would suggest that the over taste may be a closer question this case would be either lays contract construction principles clear isabel and remember we have to i be late decisions one day apart written by the same liability judge one dealt with a regulatory departure issue which we would suggest is an a p a issue but this case dealing with contract construction principle with the insurance office that provision with the writ down time provisions provisions that are not reliant upon any regulatory scheme it's a much narrower more targeted case which is why contract principles held for you and ruled that the i p l a decision was erroneous and that those contracts you are correct what would you overlap between the two statutes but the talker says that it is exclusive so if there is an overlap with the legal test for jurisdiction the talk iraq prevails and congress obviously passed the to make sure that the court of federal claims can address all of these types of contract disputes between private litigants and the government when you look at the ideal a decision that is at issue in this case not  know the case that dealt with regulatory issues but that in this case when you see that the ideal itself relied upon contract construction principle we would suggest this court clearly would have jurisdiction to a farm taylor energy prevailing at the court of federal claims player and i think my i heard my time is up thank you thank you very much decommissioning obligation then as applied for these agreements ensures that funds are available over time to make sure that all the decommissioning takes place so it's it's a regulatory requirement not just a money man the london a quick question for you is it your view that if they if this case was before the district court under the a p a and the question was initially what about the i the agency to take action that's consistent with the law that depending on edge that action would be just bursting the funds it could order that i don't want to say that's the default remedy if it's a procedural error or