Bormes v. United States
2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 23611
Fed. Cir.2010Background
- Bormes filed a class action under FCRA alleging that displaying his and others' credit card information violated §1681c(g)(1).
- He sought statutory damages, fees, and costs, invoking Little Tucker Act jurisdiction and FCRA §1681p for jurisdiction.
- The district court dismissed for lack of sovereign immunity under Rule 12(b)(6), but held FCRA provided jurisdiction.
- Seventh Circuit Talley case held Tucker Act may waive immunity for FCRA claims; en banc proceedings were pending.
- This court held FCRA is money-mandating and that Little Tucker Act provides an alternative basis for jurisdiction; vacated and remanded for further proceedings.
- The opinion discusses whether the district court should hear the case under the Little Tucker Act and whether FCRA’s text suffices to support monetary relief against the United States.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is FCRA money-mandating to support Tucker Act jurisdiction? | Bormes—FCRA §1618n money-mandating; includes government as a liable ‘person’. | Government—FCRA lacks express waiver of sovereign immunity; Blueport DMCA analogy. | Yes, money-mandating; Tucker Act jurisdiction exists. |
| Does the Little Tucker Act provide an alternative jurisdiction and waiver for this claim? | Bormes—Little Tucker Act provides district court jurisdiction and immunity waiver. | Government—Tucker Act limits may preclude; no alternative path. | Yes, Little Tucker Act provides concurrent jurisdiction and waiver. |
| Is Blueport controlling to deny Tucker Act jurisdiction under FCRA? | No; Blueport does not control; FCRA §1681p text supports jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- TRW Inc. v. Andrews, 534 U.S. 19 (U.S. 2001) (court describes FCRA’s purposes and money-mandating considerations)
- United States v. White Mountain Apache Tribe, 537 U.S. 465 (U.S. 2003) (money-mandating analysis under Tucker Act context)
- Army & Air Force Exchange Serv. v. Sheehan, 456 U.S. 728 (U.S. 1982) (requires explicit money damages authorization in some contexts)
- Greenlee County, Arizona v. United States, 487 F.3d 871 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (identifies money-mandating criteria and 'shall' language)
- LeBlanc v. United States, 50 F.3d 1025 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (limits of money-mandating interpretation in federal employee context)