808 F. Supp. 2d 304
D.D.C.2011Background
- Johnson sues Sullivan, McCool, Bernard for trover, conversion, and breach of contract over alleged failure to return his legal property.
- The action was removed from the Superior Court of the District of Columbia and certified under Westfall Act to the United States; AUSA Rudolph Contreras certified McCool acted within scope of employment.
- Johnson moved to strike the Westfall certification; the court denied the motion to strike because no facts show McCool acted outside the scope.
- The United States moved to dismiss under Rule 8(a) and 12(b)(6); Johnson opposed and moved to remand; the court denied remand and granted in part and denied in part.
- Johnson alleged that from Dec 2009 to July 2010, defendants received his legal documents and refused to return them within fifteen days, causing him lost revenue from motions, pleadings, and transcripts.
- The court found no breach of contract claim under applicable jurisdictional limits and allowed a conversion claim to proceed (conversion survives for now).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract jurisdiction and viability | Johnson asserts contract claim against U.S. defendants | United States argues lack of jurisdiction; contract with U.S. sovereign cannot exceed $10,000 | Claim dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; breach barred by 28 U.S.C. §1491(a) / §1346(a)(2) |
| Whether conversion claim is stated | Johnson pleads unlawful retention of his documents | United States contends no unlawful exercise of dominion | Conversion claim survives the motion to dismiss (proceeding without prejudice) |
| Rule 8 and 12(b)(6) sufficiency | Complaint provides adequate notice of claim | Defendant contends failure to state a claim | Rule 8(a) satisfied; Rule 12(b)(6) requires more, but conversion survives; breach dismissed |
| Remand to Superior Court | Johnson seeks remand | Westfall Act certification supports removal | Motion to remand denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Stokes v. Cross, 327 F.3d 1210 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (Rule 8 liberal pleading standard; notice requirement)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (plausibility standard for 12(b)(6) dismissals)
- Richardson v. United States, 193 F.3d 545 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (liberal treatment of pro se filings; avoid prejudicial inference)
- Kowal v. MCI Communications Corp., 16 F.3d 1271 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (rejects unsupported inferences in pleadings)
- Edmonds v. United States, 563 F. Supp. 2d 196 (D.D.C. 2008) (defining conversion and elements of unlawful dominion)
- Gov’t of Rwanda v. Rwanda Working Grp., 227 F. Supp. 2d 45 (D.D.C. 2002) (elements of conversion in DC law)