Ravi v. United States
20-1237
| Fed. Cl. | Mar 25, 2022Background
- Plaintiff Teja Ravi, an Indian citizen, enrolled at the University of Farmington in March 2018, received an I-20, paid $12,500 in tuition, and did not attend classes.
- The University of Farmington was an ICE/HSI-created, state‑accredited undercover institution operating as part of Operation Paper Chase to detect "pay-to-stay" student‑visa fraud.
- Operation Paper Chase was lawfully certified and reauthorized under federal undercover‑operations statutes; HSI agents enrolled students and accepted tuition to further law‑enforcement objectives.
- After enforcement actions began in January 2019, Ravi returned to India and sued the United States in the Court of Federal Claims for breach of contract and related claims seeking restitution.
- The government moved to dismiss (or for summary judgment), arguing lack of jurisdiction under the sovereign‑capacity doctrine and other defenses; the court held the Reciprocity Act did not bar suit but dismissed Ravi’s amended complaint for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction under the sovereign‑capacity doctrine, and denied discovery and amendment as futile.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Reciprocity Act bars Ravi (28 U.S.C. § 2502) | Ravi: India permits U.S. citizens to sue the Indian government, so reciprocity exists | Govt: does not contest reciprocity | Held: Reciprocity Act does not bar suit — Ravi satisfied reciprocity showing (Indian law permits suits by U.S. citizens). |
| Whether the Court has jurisdiction over contract claims given the sovereign‑capacity doctrine | Ravi: Farmington contracts were commercial; agents stepped off the throne; agents had authority/ratification so contract claims are viable | Govt: Farmington was an undercover law‑enforcement operation (sovereign action), so contract claims are barred | Held: Dismissed under RCFC 12(b)(1) — sovereign‑capacity doctrine bars contract claims arising from certified undercover law‑enforcement operation (Operation Paper Chase). |
| Whether additional discovery (RCFC 56(d)) should be allowed before ruling | Ravi: needs discovery to show disputed facts (classes offered, uses of tuition, agent authority) | Govt: discovery would be futile and would not alter jurisdictional result | Held: Denied — plaintiff failed RCFC 56(d) requirements and requested discovery would not overcome the jurisdictional bar. |
| Whether leave to amend to add another plaintiff should be granted (RCFC 15) | Ravi: adding a plaintiff promotes justice and efficiency; new plaintiff similarly harmed | Govt: amendment is futile and prejudicial/delaying | Held: Denied as futile — jurisdictional defect would apply to any proposed plaintiff, so amendment would not cure deficiency. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392 (1976) (Tucker Act confers jurisdiction but does not create substantive rights)
- Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (1994) (federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction)
- El‑Shifa Pharm. Indus. Co. v. United States, 378 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (Reciprocity Act requires showing of equal treatment by foreign courts)
- Kania v. United States, 650 F.2d 264 (Ct. Cl. 1981) (distinguishing proprietary vs. sovereign government contracts)
- Silva v. United States, 51 Fed. Cl. 374 (2002) (contract claims arising from undercover law‑enforcement operations are barred by sovereign‑capacity doctrine)
- Trudeau v. United States, 68 Fed. Cl. 121 (2005) (contracts made in course of criminal enforcement are generally beyond Tucker Act jurisdiction unless they unmistakably waive immunity)
- Aluminum Shapes, LLC v. United States, 139 Fed. Cl. 709 (2018) (sovereign‑capacity doctrine applies to civil enforcement actions related to sovereign functions)
- Indium Corp. of Am. v. Semi‑Alloys, Inc., 781 F.2d 879 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (courts may consider evidentiary materials outside the pleadings on jurisdictional motions)