Morgan v. United States
682 F. App'x 934
Fed. Cir.2017Background
- Morgan obtained loans from Linn County Federal Credit Union to buy a pickup and trailer and defaulted.
- The Credit Union sued in Oregon state court to recover the loan value.
- Morgan filed a motion in the Court of Federal Claims seeking to transfer the state-court action; the Claims Court treated that motion as an initial complaint.
- His initial and amended filings alleged breach of contract against the Credit Union and Hartford (insurer), added intellectual-property claims, and made assorted allegations against the State of Oregon and its employees.
- The Claims Court dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under RCFC 12(h)(3); Morgan appealed to the Federal Circuit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Court of Federal Claims had jurisdiction under the Tucker Act | Morgan contended the court should hear the case and that the United States was responsible for the contracts | The Claims Court argued Morgan sued non-federal parties and identified no money-mandating source against the United States | Court held no jurisdiction: Morgan sued state/private parties and did not identify a money-mandating source under the Tucker Act |
| Whether claims against Oregon/state actors are within Claims Court jurisdiction | Morgan asserted the State of Oregon is an entity of the United States creating jurisdiction | Government pointed out that states and state agencies are not within Claims Court jurisdiction | Court held Claims Court lacks jurisdiction over states, state officials, and state agencies |
| Whether the Claims Court should have transferred the action from state court | Morgan argued the court failed to transfer claims as requested | Government noted the motion was treated as an initial complaint and transfer depends on existing jurisdiction | Court held transfer was not applicable because subject-matter jurisdiction was absent |
| Whether Morgan identified a money-mandating substantive source for damages against the U.S. | Morgan claimed the U.S. was responsible for the contracts but provided no legal source for money damages | Government emphasized absence of any statute, contract, or regulation that would mandate money damages by the United States | Court held Morgan failed to identify any money-mandating source required by the Tucker Act |
Key Cases Cited
- Rick’s Mushroom Serv., Inc. v. United States, 521 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir.) (Tucker Act jurisdiction is jurisdictional and does not create substantive causes of action)
- Fisher v. United States, 402 F.3d 1167 (Fed. Cir.) (plaintiff must identify a money-mandating source other than the Tucker Act)
- M. Maropakis Carpentry, Inc. v. United States, 609 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir.) (plaintiff bears burden to establish subject-matter jurisdiction by a preponderance)
- Lawton v. United States, 621 F. App’x 671 (Fed. Cir.) (Claims Court lacks jurisdiction over states and state entities)
- United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584 (U.S. 1941) (foundational principle limiting Claims Court jurisdiction)
- Jan’s Helicopter Serv., Inc. v. Fed. Aviation Admin., 525 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir.) (transfer of a case requires existence of subject-matter jurisdiction)