Aryai v. Forfeiture Support Associates, LLC
25 F. Supp. 3d 376
S.D.N.Y.2012Background
- Aryai worked as a Senior Forfeiture Financial Specialist for FSA under AFP/AFSC; Morales was Acting Assistant Director of the AFP; Briskman allegedly undervalued complex assets and hid open-market processes; Aryai reported concerns to USMS personnel and later was transferred and subjected to harassment and a supervisory-initiated investigation; Aryai alleges retaliation, micromanagement, and eventual removal from the AFSC; the amended complaint adds state-law tort claims and first-amendment retaliation claim against Morales, with USMS and Morales moving to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1)/(6).
- USMS and Morales argue sovereign immunity bars FCA retaliation claims against USMS; amended 3730(h) does not clearly authorize individual liability; FTCA scope limits and contractor relations affect state-law claims; Bivens action against Morales is not warranted due to comprehensive statutory schemes (CDA, CSRA) and public-policy concerns.
- Court treats all non-conclusory allegations in Aryai’s favor, grants dismissal of all moving-defendants’ claims with prejudice; FSA remains as a defendant with potential remedies, and a Rule 16 conference with FSA is to be scheduled.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether amended 3730(h) allows a claim against individuals | Aryai argues amended 3730(h) permits individual liability. | USMS/Morales contend no sovereign or individual liability under the amended provision. | Amended 3730(h) does not provide a cause of action against Morales or USMS; dismissal granted. |
| Whether USMS is immune from FCA retaliation claims | Aryai asserts waiver or circumventing sovereign immunity. | USMS immunity remains; no unequivocal waiver in statute. | Sovereign immunity bars FCA claim against USMS; dismissal affirmed. |
| Whether Morales can be sued for tortious interference (FTCA scope) | Morales allegedly interfered with contracts outside the scope of employment. | FTCA scope-of-employment analysis governs; actions within scope substituted to United States, but FTCA lacks waiver for tortious interference. | Morales acted within scope; Counts II–III proceed only as against the United States, and FTCA does not waive tortious-interference claims; those counts dismissed. |
| Whether Bivens remedies are available for Morales’s First Amendment retaliation | Aryai seeks damages for constitutional violation. | No Bivens remedy due to CDA/CSRA and existing remedial schemes; special factors counsel hesitation. | Special factors preclude Bivens relief; Count Four dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bush v. Lucas, 462 U.S. 367 (U.S. 1983) (elaborate remedial schemes limit creation of new Bivens actions)
- Sch Schweiker v. Chilicky, 487 U.S. 412 (U.S. 1988) (comprehensive statutory remedies caution against Bivens actions when remedies exist)
- Malesko v. Galaza, 534 U.S. 61 (U.S. 2001) (limits Bivens where alternative remedial schemes exist or federal authority at issue)
- Dotson v. Griesa, 398 F.3d 156 (2d Cir. 2005) (assesses whether to recognize Bivens when CSRA remedies exist for employment disputes)