Pucciariello v. United States
116 Fed. Cl. 390
| Fed. Cl. | 2014Background
- DAR program administered by FAA; appointments terminable at FAA discretion under 49 U.S.C. §44702 and FAA rules.
- Plaintiff Pucciariello entered a 1998 EEOC settlement agreeing to retire and be appointed as a DAR, with renewal rights if eligible.
- DAR appointment was terminated by FAA on January 25, 2012 after investigation into his performance.
- Administrative appeal process existed; FAA upheld termination after an appeal panel decision dated March 29, 2012.
- Pucciariello filed a Florida district court suit (dismissed for lack of jurisdiction) and then filed this Tucker Act suit seeking damages, declaratory relief, and an injunction.
- Court granted defendant’s 12(b)(1)/(6) motion, dismissing for lack of jurisdiction and, alternatively, for failure to state a claim; equitable relief precluded; takings and contract claims dismissed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Tucker Act jurisdiction exists notwithstanding §46110 preemption | Pucciariello’s claims arise from a settlement and Fifth Amendment takings; money damages are available under Tucker Act. | §46110 provides exclusive review in courts of appeals for FAA orders; Tucker Act jurisdiction is preempted. | No Tucker Act jurisdiction; §46110 preempts. |
| Whether the settlement agreement could fairly be read to provide money damages for breach | Settlement guaranteed renewal unless disqualified; breach could yield monetary relief. | Discretion to terminate/nonrenew DAR remains; no for-cause requirement; no inherent money remedy. | Settlement can fairly be read to contemplate money damages; but jurisdiction ultimately precluded by §46110. |
| Whether Pucciariello has a cognizable Fifth Amendment takings claim | DAR appointment is a property interest protected by the Fifth Amendment. | DARs lack cognizable property interests; designation is a privilege terminable at FAA discretion. | No cognizable property interest; taking claim dismissed. |
| Whether equitable relief may be awarded given lack of money damages | Relief sought is tied to money damages and contract remedies. | LF Claims not tied to money judgment; Court lacks authority to grant injunctive/declaratory relief here. | Equitable relief barred; dismiss all claims. |
| Whether dismissal should be with prejudice or without | Dismissal without prejudice; all claims dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jan’s Helicopter Serv., Inc. v. Fed. Aviation Admin., 525 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (money-mandating source for Tucker Act jurisdiction; review of FAA actions)
- Texas Peanut Farmers v. United States, 409 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (preemption of Tucker Act jurisdiction by comprehensive scheme)
- Americopters, LLC v. Fed. Aviation Admin., 441 F.3d 726 (9th Cir. 2006) (exclusive review scheme precludes Tucker Act relief)
- Holmes v. United States, 657 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (breach of settlement can be money damages if reasonably so contemplated)
- Holmes v. United States, 657 F.3d 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (regarding EEOC settlements and money damages)