Davinci Aircraft, Inc. v. United States
926 F.3d 1117
9th Cir.2019Background
- DaVinci Aircraft bought ten GPS antennas (surplus from Lockheed/Lockheed subcontractor) and later refused initial Air Force demands to surrender them; price negotiations failed.
- In Sept. 2014 Air Force agents produced a letter invoking 18 U.S.C. § 793(d) (Espionage Act) and, under threat of prosecution, compelled DaVinci to surrender the antennas; DaVinci submitted an invoice for $1.25M.
- DaVinci exhausted FTCA administrative remedies and sued in district court asserting conversion, abuse of process, two constitutional (Bivens) claims, fraud/ negligent misrepresentation, and conspiracy; the government moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim.
- The district court dismissed all claims against the United States, finding FTCA exceptions barred tort claims (including §2680(c) detention of goods and §2680(h) for certain misrepresentation-type claims) and that Bivens did not permit suit against the United States.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed dismissal, holding the detention-of-goods exception bars the abuse-of-process and conversion claims, rejecting DaVinci’s attempt to keep those tort claims in district court, and remanded with instructions to transfer to the Court of Federal Claims if DaVinci so requests.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether FTCA §2680(c) (detention of goods) bars DaVinci’s abuse-of-process claim | §2680(c) doesn’t apply because this was a permanent seizure and not mere detention; abuse of process survives | §2680(c) bars any claim arising from detention/seizure of goods by law enforcement | Barred — §2680(c) covers seizures; abuse-of-process claim barred |
| Whether FTCA §2680(c) bars conversion claim | Conversion is a tort sounding in law; thus district court has FTCA jurisdiction | Same as above: §2680(c) bars claims arising from detention/seizure; Tucker Act provides alternate forum | Barred in district court — conversion falls within §2680(c); remedy (if any) lies in Court of Federal Claims under Tucker Act |
| Availability of Tucker Act / Court of Federal Claims for compensation or replevin | District court dismissal leaves plaintiff without remedy; conversion must stay in district court | Tucker Act and Court of Federal Claims provide adequate remedies (takings, contract/restitution theories) and §2680(c) doesn’t apply there | Held: DaVinci may pursue limited relief in Court of Federal Claims (Tucker Act) including reimbursement/out‑of‑pocket and takings claims; district court should transfer if requested |
| Viability of Bivens claims against named individuals (and against the United States) | Bivens claims against individual officers should proceed; constitutional violations alleged | Bivens permits suits only against individuals in their personal capacities; sovereign immunity bars suit against the United States; named individuals were not properly served/are not parties here | Bivens claims not part of this appeal and properly dismissed as to the United States; individual-capacity claims were not prosecuted/served and so are not before the court |
Key Cases Cited
- Kosak v. United States, 465 U.S. 848 (Sup. Ct.) (detention-of-goods exception covers all injuries associated with detention)
- Ali v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 552 U.S. 214 (Sup. Ct.) (§2680(c) applies to all law‑enforcement officers)
- Gasho v. United States, 39 F.3d 1420 (9th Cir. 1994) (seizures fall within §2680(c); exception bars remedy for seizures)
- Snyder & Associates Acquisitions LLC v. United States, 859 F.3d 1152 (9th Cir.) (discussion of FTCA scope and §2680 exceptions)
- Hatzlachh Supply Co. v. United States, 444 U.S. 460 (Sup. Ct.) (Tucker Act not limited by §2680(c))
- Ast/Servo Sys., Inc. v. United States, 449 F.2d 789 (Ct. Cl.) (Court of Claims allowed reimbursement for out‑of‑pocket costs after government repossession under Espionage Act theory)
- Lockheed L‑188 Aircraft v. United States, 656 F.2d 390 (9th Cir.) (similar principle: Tucker Act avenue for compensation after government seizure)
- FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471 (Sup. Ct.) (sovereign immunity and jurisdictional limits on suit against the United States)