Estate of Grant v. United States
134 Fed. Cl. 348
Fed. Cl.2017Background
- Matthew and Florenza Grant, African American farmers in North Carolina, alleged USDA discrimination in loan programs and entered a March 2, 1998 “Final Resolution Agreement” with USDA Office of Civil Rights director Lloyd Wright that was expressly subject to Department of Justice (DOJ) review and approval.
- The agreement promised payment to Matthew Grant and debt forgiveness, but DOJ declined to approve the settlement; no payment was made and by 2000 the Grants understood DOJ had refused approval.
- Matthew and Florenza later were involved in other litigation (Pigford class action and a 2000 suit transferred and dismissed in 2011, then settled), and Matthew’s estate accepted a 2011 settlement releasing pre-settlement claims.
- Gary Grant (executor) filed this pro se suit in the Court of Federal Claims in December 2016 on behalf of his parents’ estates, asserting breach of the 1998 agreement and various constitutional, statutory, regulatory, tort, and Farm Bill-based claims; he sought remand to an ALJ and monetary relief.
- The government moved to dismiss and for summary judgment, arguing (1) no binding contract existed because DOJ approval was a condition precedent and never given, (2) the Tucker Act statute of limitations (28 U.S.C. § 2501) bars any contract claim, and (3) the Court lacks jurisdiction over the other asserted claims.
- The Court concluded it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over all claims (statute-of-limitations and non–money-mandating or non-claim statutes), granted the government’s motion to dismiss, denied remand, and dismissed the claims without prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a binding contract existed from the 1998 Resolution Agreement | The Grants contend the USDA breached the 1998 agreement by failing to pay as promised | DOJ review was a condition precedent; DOJ declined approval, so no binding contract | No contract — clause making DOJ approval a condition precedent voided the agreement when approval was refused |
| Whether the Court has jurisdiction over breach claim under Tucker Act given § 2501 | Grant seeks money damages for breach | The breach (and knowledge DOJ refused approval) occurred by 2000; § 2501 six‑year limit bars suit filed in 2016 | Jurisdiction lacking — breach claim time‑barred under 28 U.S.C. § 2501 (dismissed) |
| Whether the Court has jurisdiction over claimed statutory/constitutional causes (ECOA, FOIA, constitutional amendments, Civil Rights Act, §1985, Clayton Act, state law, torts) | Grant asserts ECOA, FOIA, constitutional and other statutory/regulatory violations and seeks relief | Many claims are reserved to district courts, are not money‑mandating, or sound in tort/state law, thus outside Court of Federal Claims jurisdiction | Dismissed for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction (claims belong in district courts or are non–money‑mandating or tort/state law) |
| Whether remand to an administrative law judge or relief under §14012 Farm Bill is available | Grant requests remand/ALJ hearing and invokes §14012 as vehicle for Pigford relief | §14012 relief and renewed Pigford administrative proceedings are within district court jurisdiction (D.C.), and the Court lacks jurisdiction overall | Motion for remand denied; Court cannot remand because it lacks jurisdiction; §14012 claims fall outside this Court |
Key Cases Cited
- Jan's Helicopter Serv., Inc. v. Fed. Aviation Admin., 525 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir.) (Tucker Act requires separate money‑mandating source)
- Fisher v. United States, 402 F.3d 1167 (Fed. Cir.) (Tucker Act suit needs independent substantive source for damages)
- John R. Sand & Gravel Co. v. United States, 552 U.S. 130 (U.S.) (28 U.S.C. § 2501 is jurisdictional)
- San Carlos Apache Tribe v. United States, 639 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir.) (accrual and jurisdictional statute of limitations principles)
- Martinez v. United States, 333 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir.) (accrual when government liability is fixed)
- Alder Terrace, Inc. v. United States, 161 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir.) (contract breach accrual rule)
- M. Maropakis Carpentry, Inc. v. United States, 609 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir.) (plaintiff bears burden to prove jurisdiction)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S.) (summary judgment standards)
- Mingus Constructors, Inc. v. United States, 812 F.2d 1387 (Fed. Cir.) (opponent must show evidentiary conflict to avoid summary judgment)
- Rick's Mushroom Serv., Inc. v. United States, 521 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir.) (court must ensure subject‑matter jurisdiction)
- Keene Commercial v. United States, 508 U.S. 200 (U.S.) (Court of Federal Claims lacks jurisdiction over tort claims)