|
|
District Court Had Tucker Act Jurisdiction
A district court had jurisdiction over a claim against the government for
injunctive and declaratory relief based on regulatory violations, but not based
on contractual violations, held the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit,
because the Tucker Act's exception to the sovereign immunity waiver is limited
to claims which are essentially contractual. The government terminated the
contractor's subsidy payments under the Section 8 federal housing program after
finding the contractor had failed to comply with a contractual requirement to
keep units in satisfactory condition. The contractor brought suit in federal
district court for a preliminary and permanent injunction to prevent termination
of the payments, alleging the termination was a breach of contract and a
violation of various regulations. Appealing the district court's dismissal for
lack of jurisdiction, the contractor disputed the court's characterization of
its claim as a disguised claim for monetary relief and argued the claim was for
"relief other than monetary damages" to which the Administrative
Procedure Act's waiver of sovereign immunity (5 USC 702) applied.
"Impliedly Forbids"
The Tenth Circuit first determined the claim implicated the APA's waiver of
sovereign immunity because the claim's primary purpose was to obtain equitable
relief. The claim was not for monetary relief because its focus was entirely
prospective --seeking to preserve the contractor's ongoing relationship with the
government rather than enabling a claim for past pecuniary harm. In addition,
the claim sought to prevent the government's allegedly premature termination of
Section 8 payments, not recovery of compensatory damages. The court then
addressed whether another statute might forbid the relief. The Tucker Act
"impliedly forbids" federal courts other than the Court of Federal
Claims from ordering declaratory or injunctive relief for claims founded on
contract, but not for claims founded on the Constitution, statutes, or
regulations. Accordingly, the district court correctly declined jurisdiction
over the claim for breach of contract, but it erred in dismissing the
contractor's regulatory claims. The fact that the regulatory violation could not
have been alleged absent the existence of a contract did not convert a claim
asserting rights based on federal regulations into one which is "at its
essence" a contract claim. The case was reversed and remanded in part, and
affirmed in part. (Normandy Apartments, Ltd. v. Dept. of Housing and Urban
Development, et al., CA-10, 53
CCF ¶79,066)
(The news featured above is a selection from the news covered in the Government Contracts Report Letter, which is published weekly and distributed to subscribers of the Government Contracts Reporter. )
|
|
|
|