Quicken Loans Inc. v. United States
152 F. Supp. 3d 938
E.D. Mich.2015Background
- Quicken Loans Inc. sues HUD-related agencies challenging FHA monitoring and an alleged shift to a sampling-based loan review method.
- Defendants move to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) or, alternatively, to transfer to the D.C. District Court.
- Quicken asserts APA claims and a procedural due process claim, plus declaratory and injunctive relief regarding non-breach of contract.
- HUD suspended the PETR review process for Subject Loans in June 2013; DOJ/HUD-OIG later pursued FCA action in D.D.C. involving the same loans.
- Court finds no final agency action or non-discretionary, reviewable agency action; FCA action provides an adequate remedy and precludes APA relief.
- Court dismisses APA and due process claims with prejudice and declines to exercise jurisdiction over the declaratory judgment non-breach claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the APA claims are reviewable | Quicken contends agency action is reviewable. | Defendants argue action is non-final or committed to discretion. | APA claims dismissed for lack of final, non-discretionary agency action. |
| Whether HUD's PETR suspension constitutes final agency action | Quicken treats the letter suspending PETR as final action affecting rights. | Letter not final or binding with no legal consequence. | Letter not final agency action; no binding rights imposed. |
| Whether Quicken's procedural due process claim is viable | Sampling/extrapolation harms Quicken's property interest in insurance. | No deprivation without a legally significant consequence; due process not triggered. | Due process claim dismissed; no deprivation before enforcement action. |
| Whether the declaratory judgment non-breach claim should be entertained | Declaration that loans were properly underwritten would resolve controversy. | FCA action is the proper vehicle; declaratory relief would be duplicative and unnecessary. | Court declines declaratory relief; FCA action preferred; no independent jurisdiction. |
| Whether the court should retain or transfer the case | Case should proceed here for core claims. | Transfer to D.C. or dismissal appropriate; FCA action already pending. | Motion to transfer denied as moot; case dismissed with prejudice. |
Key Cases Cited
- Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. 55 (2004) (agency action reviewability hinges on finality and discreteness)
- Air Brake Sys., Inc. v. Mineta, 357 F.3d 632 (6th Cir. 2004) (final agency action requires binding rights or obligations)
- Banner Health v. Sebelius, 797 F.Supp.2d 97 (D.D.C. 2011) (vague, non-specific allegations fail as APA claims)
- Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821 (1985) (agency discretion limits judicial review of enforcement decisions)
- Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154 (1997) (finality and judicial review limitations under the APA)