Bp America Production Co., Successor In Interest To Amoco Production Co., Et Al. V. Burton, Acting Assistant Secretary, Land And Minerals Management, Department Of The Interior, Et Al.
Essay by 24 • January 6, 2011 • 453 Words (2 Pages) • 1,664 Views
Essay Preview: Bp America Production Co., Successor In Interest To Amoco Production Co., Et Al. V. Burton, Acting Assistant Secretary, Land And Minerals Management, Department Of The Interior, Et Al.
Facts:
The Interior Department’s Minerals Management Service issued administrative orders assessing petitioners for royalty underpayments on gas leases they held on Government lands, petitioners filed an administrative appeal, contending that the proceeding were barred by 28 U.S.C. Ð'§2415(a). The relevant part of the code was that every action for money damages brought by the United States or an … agency thereof which is found upon any contract… shall be barred unless the complaint is filed within six years after the right of action accrues or within one year after final decisions have been rendered in applicable administrative proceeding.” The statutory terms are generally interpreted in accordance with their ordinary meaning. Also the petitioners’ assertion that Ð'§2415(a)’s text is clear and its terms “action” and “complaint” are usually used with judicial proceedings. The next is the petitioners’ suggestion that a Minerals Management Service payment order constitutes a complaint under Ð'§2415(a). The remaining doubts are erased by the canon that statutes of limitations are construed narrowly against the government. The court disagrees with petitioners’ argument that interpreting Ð'§2415(a) which specifies that the provisions of this section shall not prevent the United States from collecting any claim by means of administrative offset. Finally interpreting Ð'§2415(a) as applying only to judicial actions may result in certain peculiarities, petitioners’ alternative interpretation would itself result in disharmony.
Discussion:
BP America Production Co., Successor in interest to Amoco Production Co. contend that interpreting Ð'§2415(a) as applying only to judicial actions results in a statutory scheme with peculiarities that Congress could not have intended. Petitioners note that while they are required by statute to preserve their records regarding royalty obligations for only seven years,
...
...