Kam-Almaz v. United States
96 Fed. Cl. 84
Fed. Cl.2011Background
- Plaintiff seeks compensation for losses from seizure of his laptop and flash disks by U.S. Customs/ICE.
- Plaintiff alleges an implied-in-fact bailment or uncompensated taking occurred during seizure and retention.
- Laptops were seized at Dulles International Airport on April 7, 2006; plaintiff alleges seven-day return promise and 30-day detention per Form 6051D.
- Plaintiff repeatedly requested copies of files; requests were denied; computer later crashed causing permanent damage to software/data/warranty.
- Government retained the property for about ten weeks (until June 21, 2006) and plaintiff incurred damages totaling $469,480.
- Defendant moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bailment claim viability | Almaz alleges implied bailment via promises and custody. | No bailment; seizure did not transfer possession or imply care obligations. | Bailment claim failed; no mutual intent or authority shown. |
| Authority to contract | Government agent had authority to bind government in bailment. | No evidence of agent's contractual authority; duties did not include contracting power. | Lack of agent's contractual authority; claim dismissed. |
| Takings jurisdiction and public-use analysis | Property seized via police power may constitute a taking entitling damages. | Seizure under police power not a compensable taking; or due process claim proper in District Court. | Takings claim dismissed; not a money-mandating taking; jurisdiction lacking for due process-related damages in this court. |
| Due process and delayed return | Delay in return constitutes compensable taking damages. | Delay claims fall under due process, not money-mandating; District Court proper. | Delay claims not within this court's jurisdiction; dismiss. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (U.S. 2009) (pleading plausibility standard)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (plausibility requirement for claims)
- United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206 (U.S. 1983) (money-mandating requirement for jurisdiction)
- United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392 (U.S. 1976) (jurisdictional bar for non-money-mandating claims)
- LeBlanc v. United States, 50 F.3d 1025 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (Fourth Amendment claims reserved for district court)
- Ridge Line, Inc. v. United States, 346 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (jurisdictional scope for takings claims)
- Acadia Technology, Inc. v. United States, 458 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (due process/delay not money-mandating; jurisdictional limits)
- AmeriSource Corp. v. United States, 525 F.3d 1149 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (policing power seizures not taking for public-use clause)
- Seay v. United States, 61 Fed. Cl. 32 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (police power seizures not 'public use' takings)
- James v. Caldera, 159 F.3d 573 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (due process limitations on takings claims)
- Hatzlachh Supply Co. v. United States, 7 Cl. Ct. 743 (Ct. Cl. 1985) (no implied bailment without explicit promises)
- Lionberger v. United States, 371 F.2d 831 (Ct. Cl. 1967) (definition of bailment and return of goods)
- Hanlin v. United States, 316 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (bailment requires mutual intent and authority)
- Aide, S.A. v. United States, 28 F.3d 26 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (unilateral seizure not bailment)
- McAfee v. United States, 46 F.Cl. 428 (2000) (authority to bind government required for contract claims)
- Acadia Technology, Inc. v. United States, 458 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (see above)