Lopez v. United States
25-1499
| Fed. Cir. | Jul 16, 2025Background
- Arthur Lopez previously litigated against Irvine Company LLC and associated entities, alleging discrimination and unfair business practices after his lease was terminated.
- The original case was dismissed in district court, and the Ninth Circuit dismissed Lopez’s appeal.
- Lopez then filed suit in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, alleging the U.S. government conspired with Irvine Company to deprive him of property and Social Security Disability Benefits, and engaged in harassment and criminal actions.
- The Court of Federal Claims dismissed Lopez’s complaint for lack of jurisdiction.
- On appeal to the Federal Circuit, the government moved for summary affirmance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Court of Federal Claims jurisdiction | Claims relate to property takings and deprivation of benefits caused by U.S. government’s actions | Claims sound in tort, involve criminal matters, or Social Security benefits—all outside court's jurisdiction | Claims outside court's jurisdiction |
| Judicial bias and recusal | Alleged trial court bias and improper denial of recusal and leave to amend | No evidence of bias; arguments are speculative | No evidence of bias; requirements not satisfied |
| Claims for Social Security benefits | Government deprived Lopez of benefits as part of wrongful actions | Social Security benefit claims not within court’s reach | Jurisdiction does not extend to Social Security |
| Alleged criminal actions by government | U.S. engaged in criminal activities (entrapment, harassment, etc.) against Lopez | Criminal claims are not justiciable in this court | Court has no jurisdiction over criminal matters |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Navajo Nation, 556 U.S. 287 (2009) (sets parameters on Tucker Act jurisdiction for claims for compensation against U.S.)
- United States v. Bormes, 568 U.S. 6 (2012) (Tucker Act does not apply where there is a specific judicial remedy provided by Congress)
- Marcus v. United States, 909 F.2d 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (Court of Federal Claims’ jurisdiction does not extend to Social Security benefit claims)
- Joshua v. United States, 17 F.3d 378 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (summary affirmance appropriate where lack of jurisdiction is clear)