Abbas v. United States, 124 Fed. Cl. 46

Hassan A. Abbas (pro se, an Illinois attorney) sued the United States seeking compensation for an alleged Fifth Amendment taking of his right to enforce certain unvalidated German dollar bearer bonds and asserted a Seventh Amendment jury-trial claim.
The alleged taking is tied to a 1953 U.S.–Germany treaty (the Validation Treaty) that required bond validation before enforcement in U.S. courts; the treaty was entered April 1, 1953.
Abbas concedes he did not own the bonds in 1953 and does not allege when he acquired them; he values the bonds at roughly $1,000.
Abbas previously represented bondholders in litigation to enforce German bearer bonds (Bleier/Korber line of cases) in which courts addressed validation requirements.
The government moved to dismiss under RCFC 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). The Court dismissed: (1) the takings claim as time-barred under 28 U.S.C. § 2501, for lack of standing (no ownership at time of taking), and for failure to state a claim; and (2) the Seventh Amendment claim for lack of jurisdiction in the Court of Federal Claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Abbas's takings claim is timely under 28 U.S.C. § 2501	Accrual occurred Oct. 3, 2010 (when Germany completed London Debt Agreement payments), so suit filed 2015 is within six years	Accrual occurred when U.S. entered the Validation Treaty in 1953; §2501 six-year period expired long before 2015	Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction: claim accrued in 1953 and is time-barred
Whether Abbas has standing to assert the takings claim	Abbas contends his enforcement right was taken by the Validation Treaty	Government: only those owning property at time of the taking may recover; Abbas admits he did not own bonds in 1953	Dismissed for lack of standing; Abbas did not own bonds at time of alleged taking
Whether complaint states a plausible Fifth Amendment takings claim	Abbas alleges loss of right to enforce bonds in U.S. courts due to treaty	Government: no cognizable property interest at time of taking; factual allegations fail to state a cognizable taking	Dismissed under RCFC 12(b)(6) for failure to state a plausible takings claim
Whether the Court of Federal Claims can adjudicate a Seventh Amendment jury-right claim	Abbas asserts treaty deprived him of jury-trial right to fix damages	Government: Seventh Amendment does not create a money-mandating obligation the Court can enforce	Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; Court of Federal Claims cannot adjudicate Seventh Amendment claim

Penn Central Transp. Co. v. City of New York, 438 U.S. 104 (U.S. 1978) (Penn Central regulatory-takings balancing test)
Lucas v. S.C. Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (U.S. 1992) (categorical takings where regulation deprives all economically beneficial use)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (plausibility pleading standard)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (application of Twombly plausibility standard)
John R. Sand & Gravel Co. v. United States, 552 U.S. 130 (U.S. 2008) (§2501 six-year limitations is not equitably tollable)
Goodrich v. United States, 434 F.3d 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (when a claim accrues for §2501 purposes)
CRV Enters., Inc. v. United States, 626 F.3d 1241 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (standing requires ownership at time of taking)
A & D Auto Sales, Inc. v. United States, 748 F.3d 1142 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (discussion of regulatory vs. physical takings)
United States v. Dow, 357 U.S. 17 (U.S. 1958) (ownership at time of taking relevant to takings remedy)