Soloway v. United States
130 Fed. Cl. 400
| Fed. Cl. | 2017Background
- Bruce Soloway owned real property in Michigan and refinanced it in 2007; Freddie Mac foreclosed on the property in March 2015 and Soloway later redeemed it.
- Soloway filed Chapter 7 bankruptcy in 2011; he received a discharge and the bankruptcy trustee abandoned the property to him.
- Soloway sued in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims (June 9, 2016) alleging (Count I) an unlawful Fifth Amendment taking and (Count II) Fourteenth Amendment due process and equal protection violations based on Freddie Mac’s foreclosure and alleged failure to comply with MCL § 600.3204.
- The United States moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction under RCFC 12(b)(1), arguing the claims are not money‑mandating and sound in tort/state law.
- Soloway sought jurisdictional discovery under RCFC 56(d) to determine whether Freddie Mac acted as a federal actor.
- The Court granted the Government’s motion, concluding it lacked jurisdiction and denying Soloway’s request for discovery; the complaint was dismissed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Court of Federal Claims has Tucker Act jurisdiction over Count I (Fifth Amendment takings) | Soloway: Freddie Mac acted as a federal actor and its foreclosure was an unlawful taking for which money damages/relief lie. | Gov’t: Claim is based on statutory/state law and tort; not a money‑mandating source for Tucker Act jurisdiction. | Held: No jurisdiction — claim premised on statutory/state law, not a money‑mandating Fifth Amendment takings claim. |
| Whether Count II (Fourteenth Amendment due process/equal protection) provides money‑mandating basis for jurisdiction | Soloway: Foreclosure violated due process/equal protection; court should hear it. | Gov’t: Fourteenth Amendment is not money‑mandating; thus no Tucker Act jurisdiction. | Held: No jurisdiction — Fourteenth Amendment claims are not money‑mandating. |
| Whether jurisdictional discovery is warranted to determine if Freddie Mac acted as a government actor | Soloway: Discovery is needed to establish Freddie Mac acted as the United States. | Gov’t: Even if Freddie Mac were a federal actor, the claims rest on non‑money‑mandating state/statutory provisions; discovery would not establish jurisdiction. | Held: Denied — discovery would not produce facts sufficient to create Tucker Act jurisdiction. |
| Whether the 12(b)(1) motion should be treated as a summary judgment motion (RCFC 12(d)/56(d)) | Soloway: Government relies on facts beyond the complaint; conversion and discovery under RCFC 56(d) are appropriate. | Gov’t: Conversion rule applies to 12(b)(6) not 12(b)(1); court may decide jurisdictional questions without converting the motion. | Held: Court treated the motion as a jurisdictional 12(b)(1) motion and did not convert it; RCFC 56(d) relief denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392 (jurisdiction under the Tucker Act requires a money‑mandating source)
- Lion Raisins, Inc. v. United States, 416 F.3d 1356 (claims premised on regulatory/statutory violations do not necessarily state a takings claim)
- LeBlanc v. United States, 50 F.3d 1025 (Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses are not money‑mandating for Tucker Act jurisdiction)
- Todd v. United States, 386 F.3d 1091 (Tucker Act jurisdiction requires identification of an independent source of substantive law that mandates money damages)
- Fisher v. United States, 402 F.3d 1167 (same principle: the Tucker Act does not create substantive rights; plaintiff must show a money‑mandating source)