<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1106" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=2><FONT size=3>Orff v. United States<BR>Argued: 02/23/05<BR>No.
03-1566<BR>Court below: 358 F.3d 1137 (9th Cir. 2004)<BR>Full text: </FONT><A
href="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0016922p.pdf"><FONT
size=3>http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0016922p.pdf</FONT></A><BR><FONT
size=3><BR>FEDERAL SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY (Farmers' Legal Capacity to Sue United
States Bureau of Reclamation)<BR><BR>The issue in this case is whether farmers
are intended third-party beneficiaries of a contract between the Westlands Water
District and the United States Bureau of Reclamation.<BR><BR>The Westlands Water
District (Westlands) receives water from the Central Valley Project (CVP)
pursuant to a 1963 contract with the United States Bureau of Reclamation
(Bureau). After learning that continued operation of the CVP would
threaten certain endangered species, the Bureau greatly reduced the Westlands'
water supply pursuant to the Endangered Species Act (ESA), which requires
federal agencies to avoid threatening endangered species. Landowners and
water users filed a lawsuit against Westlands in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of California (District Court), alleging that the
water reduction violated the 1963 contract. However, the District Court
found that the government was not liable because the contract expressly absolved
the government from liability for a breach of contract caused by statutory
mandate. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Court
of Appeals) affirmed. Subsequently, Westlands filed the present lawsuit in
which numerous farmers intervened. The District Court found that the
farmers were not intended third-party beneficiaries of the 1963 contract and
thus, were not a contracting entity with which the government had
waived<BR>sovereign immunity. The farmers appealed. The Court of
Appeals affirmed the District Court's ruling, holding that sovereign immunity
deprived the court of jurisdiction to hear the farmers' claims. On appeal
to the United States Supreme Court, the farmers argue that the text of the
contract and surrounding circumstances imply that the farmers are intended
third-party beneficiaries. The farmers also argue that a stipulated
judgment explicitly provides that they are intended third-party
beneficiaries. Finally, the farmers assert that prior judgments preclude
the Bureau from challenging the farmers' right to sue for breach
of<BR>contract. [Summarized by Krista N.
Hardwick.]</FONT></FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>