932 F.3d 1331
Fed. Cir.2019Background
- Plaintiffs are personal-injury claimants against "Old GM" whose successor-liability claims were extinguished by Old GM’s 2009 § 363 bankruptcy sale to "New GM." Plaintiffs sued the United States in the Claims Court alleging the government coerced Old GM to include language in the sale order that barred successor-liability claims, constituting a Fifth Amendment taking.
- Old GM filed the proposed § 363 sale order with the bankruptcy court on July 1, 2009; the bankruptcy court entered the sale order on July 5, 2009; the sale was effective July 9 and closed July 10, 2009. Plaintiffs appealed the bankruptcy ruling but did not obtain a stay; district court affirmed and deemed the appeal moot under § 363(m).
- Plaintiffs filed a takings suit in the Court of Federal Claims on July 9, 2015, alleging coercion-based regulatory takings by the government and later sought to amend their complaint to add allegations that coercion continued during judicial proceedings.
- The Claims Court dismissed the complaint as time-barred under the Tucker Act’s six-year statute of limitations and, alternatively, for failure to allege a cognizable property interest (characterizing successor-liability claims as too contingent).
- On appeal, the Federal Circuit held (1) claims based on alleged coercion of Old GM accrued when Old GM filed the proposed sale order (July 1, 2009), making the 2015 suit untimely; and (2) claims that would require scrutinizing the bankruptcy or district court decisions (i.e., coercion of the courts) are outside the Claims Court’s jurisdiction and must be raised through the judicial appellate process.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| When did takings claim accrue for alleged government coercion of Old GM? | Accrual occurred no earlier than the sale’s effective or closing date (July 9–10, 2009). | Accrual occurred when the proposed sale order was filed/entered (on or before July 5, 2009). | Claim accrued when Old GM filed the proposed sale order (July 1, 2009); suit filed in 2015 was untimely. |
| Whether Claims Court has jurisdiction over claims alleging government coerced bankruptcy/district courts | Coercion of courts produced a taking cognizable in Claims Court. | Claims attacking judicial decisions require collateral review and are outside Claims Court jurisdiction. | Claims that require scrutinizing other tribunals’ decisions (coercion of courts) are not within Claims Court jurisdiction. |
| Whether successor-liability claims are a cognizable property interest for Takings Clause | Successor-liability claims are property rights under state law and may be taken. | Such claims are too contingent and inhered a risk of extinguishment in bankruptcy; not cognizable for a takings claim. | Court assumed, without deciding, that such claims could be property but did not resolve the issue because of accrual and jurisdictional rulings. |
| Whether leave to further amend complaint was appropriate | Plaintiffs sought to add allegations about timing and continued coercion to save claims. | Government and Claims Court argued amendment would be futile. | Amendment denied as futile; additional allegations did not alter accrual date or jurisdictional defects. |
Key Cases Cited
- A & D Auto Sales, Inc. v. United States, 748 F.3d 1142 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (government coercion of a third party can give rise to regulatory takings in some circumstances)
- John R. Sand & Gravel Co. v. United States, 552 U.S. 130 (2008) (Claims Court six-year limitations period is jurisdictional)
- Knick v. Township of Scott, 139 S. Ct. 2162 (2019) (takings claim exists at time of taking; owner may sue in federal court without exhausting state procedures)
- Goodrich v. United States, 434 F.3d 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (regulatory-taking accrues when the government actor’s decision is final, regardless of when damages are fully calculable)
- Casitas Mun. Water Dist. v. United States, 708 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (physical-taking accrual tied to actual appropriation or diversion event)
- Allustiarte v. United States, 256 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (Claims Court lacks jurisdiction over collateral attacks on bankruptcy court judgments)