Roberson v. United States
115 Fed. Cl. 234
Fed. Cl.2014Background
- Plaintiff Carol Sue Roberson, proceeding pro se, filed suit in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims seeking monetary damages from the United States based on alleged FTC Robocall challenge handling.
- Plaintiff mailed a one-page submission to the FTC (not electronically) which the FTC treated as a consumer complaint and entered into a public/global database for law enforcement.
- Plaintiff claimed copyright infringement, accounting under 28 U.S.C. §1494, ethics violations, Fourth/Fifth/Ninth Amendment rights, and implied contract/breach of contract theories arising from the FTC contest.
- Defendant moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim, arguing lack of preregistration, non-money-mandating constitutional claims, and non-formation of a contract.
- The court granted in forma pauperis status but ultimately dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim, and denied related motions as moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction over copyright claim without preregistration | Roberson seeks infringement relief despite lack of registration | No registration or preregistration shown | Dismissed for failure to state a claim (no registration) |
| Jurisdiction over accounting claim under §1494 | Entitled to accounting for unresolved government account | §1494 requires specific conditions not met | Dismissed for failure to state a claim |
| Constitutional claims (Fourth/Fifth/Ninth Amendments) monetary remedy | Constitutional rights violated by FTC handling | These amendments are not money-mandating | Lacks jurisdiction over these claims |
| Breach of contract claim viability | Contract formed by contest advertisement and submission | No contract formed; no offer/acceptance under contest rules | Dismissed for failure to state a claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Muchnick, 559 U.S. 154 (U.S. 2010) (copyright preregistration requirement applies unless a statutory exception)
- Martinez v. United States, 333 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (money-mandating source required for Tucker Act suits)
- United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206 (U.S. 1983) (tests for money-mandating statute)
- James v. Caldera, 159 F.3d 573 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (due-process/fifth amendment claims not money-mandating)
- Krupp v. United States, 168 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (advertising/contest entry as offer/acceptance framework)
- Government Printing Office v. Hallmark Cards, 254 F.3d 1041 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (advertising as invitation for offers; contract formation principles)
- HyperCase, Inc. v. N'Site Solutions, Inc., 632 F.3d 377 (7th Cir. 2001) (failure to register copyright requires dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6))