Smith v. United States
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 3779
| Fed. Cir. | 2013Background
- Smith was disbarred by the Tenth Circuit (1996) and reciprocally disbarred by multiple courts, including the Colorado and Fifth Circuits, District of Colorado, Northern District of Texas, and Colorado Supreme Court.
- In 2007 the Tenth Circuit granted reinstatement contingent on conditions; he was reinstated on May 17, 2007, but Colorado did not readmit him.
- Colorado Supreme Court declined to readmit Smith; district court in Colorado reversed itself and denied reinstatement, affirmed by the Tenth Circuit.
- Smith filed suit in the Court of Federal Claims seeking money damages and equitable relief for alleged Fifth Amendment takings and due process/equal protection violations by government actions relating to his disbarment.
- The Court of Federal Claims dismissed for lack of jurisdiction under the Tucker Act and, alternatively, the statute of limitations under 28 U.S.C. § 2501.
- This appeal challenges jurisdiction under the Tucker Act and accrual/tolling issues for a claimed judicial taking.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Tucker Act jurisdiction exists for alleged due process/equal protection takings | Smith cites monetary remedy under Fifth Amendment takings. | Government argues no money-mandating right exists under Tucker Act for these claims. | No Tucker Act jurisdiction for due process/equal protection claims. |
| Whether Stop the Beach Renourishment created a new judicial-taking cause of action | Stop the Beach recognized judicial takings as viable; action accrues after decision. | Judicial taking existed before Stop the Beach; accrual occurs at final disbarment. | Stop the Beach did not create a new action; accrual occurred by final disbarment orders. |
| When did the judicial-taking claim accrue for statute of limitations purposes | Accrual began with Stop the Beach decision (2010). | Accrual began with final disbarment orders (1996 and 1999). | Accrual occurred on the dates of final disbarment in 1996 and 1999; Stop the Beach did not reset accrual. |
| Whether later readmission decisions restarted the limitations period | Subsequent readmission denials could create new causes of action. | Those decisions reaffirm past disbarments and did not restart the limitations period. | No restart of the limitations period; subsequent decisions did not create new takings actions. |
Key Cases Cited
- Stop the Beach Renourishment, Inc. v. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, 130 S. Ct. 2592 (2010) (takings can involve judicial action, but did not create new pre-Stop actions here)
- LeBlanc v. United States, 50 F.3d 1025 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (Due Process and Equal Protection do not mandate money damages under Tucker Act)
- Ferreiro v. United States, 501 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (Tucker Act requires money-mandating substantive right separate from Tucker Act)
- Todd v. United States, 386 F.3d 1091 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (jurisdiction under Tucker Act requires a money-damages right)
- Bay Area Laundry & Dry Cleaning Pension Trust Fund v. Ferbar Corp. of California, Inc., 522 U.S. 192 (U.S. 1997) (accrual principles: a cause of action accrues when liability is fixed and relief is available)