95 Fed. Cl. 769
Fed. Cl.2010Background
- Allied Mortgage Capital Corp sues the USDA seeking recovery under a Liquidation Plan and/or quantum meruit for costs incurred in liquidating Blues Alley Project assets.
- Defendant moves to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under the Reorganization Act and implementing regulations, arguing NAD review and exhaustion are required.
- NAD (National Appeals Division) is the exclusive avenue for adverse agency decisions under USDA Rural Development programs, with final NAD decisions reviewable only in district court, after exhaustion.
- The Liquidation Plan was contemplated by the Rural Development Lender’s Agreement as part of the loan guarantee program and is not a separate, standalone contract that would support Tucker Act jurisdiction.
- The court finds Allied failed to exhaust administrative remedies, and even if exhausted, the claims would fall within NAD review, not the Court of Federal Claims, and quantum meruit recovery is unavailable where an express contract governs the subject matter.
- Accordingly, the complaint is dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does NAD exclusive jurisdiction bar the Court of Federal Claims | Allied contends the Liquidation Plan is a separate contract subject to Tucker Act review. | Reorganization Act requires NAD review and exhaustion before any judicial action. | Yes; NAD governs, and lack of exhaustion deprives this court of jurisdiction. |
| Is the Liquidation Plan a separate contract supporting Tucker Act jurisdiction | Liquidation Plan is a separate contract entitling recovery in this court. | Plan arises under the Lender’s Agreement and is governed by NAD procedures. | No; Liquidation Plan is not a separate contract; it arises under the Rural Development program. |
| Can quantum meruit claims be heard when an express contract governs | Quantum meruit recovery is warranted for services provided. | Express contract governs; quantum meruit not allowed where implied-in-law contract is absent. | No; quantum meruit not cognizable where an express contract covers the subject. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392 (U.S. 1976) (Tucker Act scope and sovereign immunity discussions)
- Bruhn v. United States, 74 Fed.Cl. 749 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (final NAD determinations reviewable in district court; exhaustion needed)
- Deaf Smith Cnty. Grain Processors, Inc. v. Glickman, 162 F.3d 1206 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (NAD jurisdiction and exhaustion analyzed)
- Enron Fed. Solutions, Inc. v. United States, 80 Fed.Cl. 382 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (quantum meruit recovery narrow; when gov’t refuses to pay under an attempted contract)
- Atlas Corp. v. United States, 895 F.2d 745 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (implied-in-fact vs. implied-in-law contracts distinction)