Marcum LLP v. United States
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 10996
Fed. Cir.2014Background
- Marcum provided forensic accounting and litigation support to Stanford, an indigent criminal defendant, under the Criminal Justice Act (CJA).
- Stanford’s budget for services exceeded $2,400 and required district court certification and circuit chief judge approval per 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(e)(3).
- The district court approved initial budgets, but Marcum did not obtain prior approval from the chief judge of the Fifth Circuit before rendering services.
- Marcum submitted monthly vouchers; June–August 2011 were paid, but September–November 2011 vouchers remained unpaid by year-end 2011.
- Chief Judge Edith Jones issued an Order on January 4, 2012, authorizing limited payment and ordering continued services under threat of contempt, with estimated unpaid fees around $1.2 million.
- Marcum challenged the Order through emergency motions and mandamus petitions, all denied, and then filed suit in the Court of Federal Claims for unpaid fees on March 13, 2013, which was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does CJA preempt Tucker Act jurisdiction for fee awards under takings claims? | Marcum argues CJA does not preempt takings review of fee awards. | United States contends CJA remedial scheme precludes Tucker Act jurisdiction for fee awards. | CJA preempts Tucker Act jurisdiction for takings claims on fee awards. |
| Is collateral review of CJA fee awards available under the Tucker Act? | Marcum seeks Tucker Act review of fee determinations. | Defendant asserts no Tucker Act review because CJA covers review within its own scheme. | Tucker Act relief is unavailable; CJA scheme governs review. |
| Are due process rights preserved for CJA fee disputes despite lack of Tucker Act review? | Marcum contends due process requires broader review of fees. | CJA provides reconsideration and mandamus pathways; process suffices. | Due process rights are protected within CJA procedures; no additional Tucker Act relief needed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Shearin v. United States, 992 F.2d 1195 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (remedial CJA scheme preempts Tucker Act jurisdiction over fee awards)
- United States v. D'Andrea, 612 F.2d 1386 (7th Cir. 1980) (administrative review limits under CJA; absence of adversary proceeding)
- United States v. Erika, 456 U.S. 201 (1982) (omission of further review under narrowly tailored remedial schemes evidence of congressional intent)
- United States v. Bormes, 133 S. Ct. 12 (2012) (Tucker Act displaced when a statute provides its own remedies)
- St. Vincent’s Med. Ctr. v. United States, 32 F.3d 548 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (remedial scheme precludes Tucker Act jurisdiction over certain claims)
- Terran v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 195 F.3d 1302 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (jurisdiction and sovereign immunity principles for limited review)