989 F.3d 1
D.C. Cir.2021Background
- Appellant Brian Hammer originally sued over a $37,000 alleged breach of contract claim that he first filed in the Court of Federal Claims (CFC), which dismissed it for failing to allege an enforceable contract.
- Hammer then filed the same claim in D.C. Superior Court; the United States removed the case to the federal District Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1).
- The Government moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim; Hammer moved to remand under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
- The District Court concluded the Tucker Act vests exclusive jurisdiction over breach-of-contract claims over $10,000 in the CFC and that the CFC dismissal collaterally estopped Hammer, so it denied remand and dismissed the case.
- Hammer appealed; the D.C. Circuit appointed amicus for Hammer and affirmed, holding § 1447(c) does not require remand in this context where the Government removed under § 1442 and waiver of sovereign immunity exists only in the CFC.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 1447(c) requires remand when the district court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction after removal | Hammer: § 1447(c)’s “shall be remanded” mandates remand to state court | U.S.: § 1442 removal and Tucker Act context allow federal courts to resolve immunity and jurisdictional issues; remand would frustrate § 1442’s purpose | Court: Read in context, § 1447(c) does not require remand here; dismissal was appropriate |
| Whether the Tucker Act vests exclusive jurisdiction for >$10,000 breach-of-contract claims in the CFC | Hammer: sought remand to state court to pursue claim | U.S.: Tucker Act confers exclusive CFC jurisdiction for monetary claims over $10,000 | Court: Agreed Tucker Act limits jurisdiction to CFC for such claims |
| Whether the prior CFC dismissal precludes relitigation (collateral estoppel) | Hammer: filed again in Superior Court; sought remand | U.S.: CFC decision forecloses same claim and issues | Court: Held collateral estoppel applies; claim is foreclosed |
| Whether remand would improperly force the Government into re-litigating a claim it only waived in the CFC | Hammer: statutory remand required regardless | U.S.: Remand would subject Government to piecemeal, unnecessary litigation contrary to § 1442’s purpose | Court: Agreed with Government; remand would undermine § 1442’s protections |
Key Cases Cited
- Roberts v. Sea-Land Servs., Inc., 566 U.S. 93 (2012) (statutory language must be read in context)
- Willingham v. Morgan, 395 U.S. 402 (1969) (§ 1442 removal protects federal defendants from state-court adjudication of immunity defenses)
- Arizona v. Manypenny, 451 U.S. 232 (1981) (removal rights under § 1442 are substantial)
- Siegert v. Gilley, 500 U.S. 226 (1991) (immunity is an entitlement to avoid suit, not just a defense)
- Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 (1985) (qualified immunity protects from suit itself)
- Greenhill v. Spellings, 482 F.3d 569 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (Tucker Act/CFC jurisdiction principles)
- Franklin-Mason v. Mabus, 742 F.3d 1051 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (discussing waiver and consequences in state fora)
- United States v. Pryce, 938 F.2d 1343 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (harmless-error doctrine for appellate review)