Thakkar v. United States
389 F. Supp. 3d 160
| D.D.C. | 2019Background
- Plaintiff is a MAVNI enlistee who served in the Selected Reserve, obtained an executed N-426, submitted Form N-400, and alleges his naturalization processing has been delayed or withheld due to DOD-imposed enhanced security screenings.
- The Nio class action (D.D.C.) was filed earlier and challenges the same DOD/USCIS practices affecting MAVNI applicants; Nio includes both medical and language MAVNIs.
- Defendants (DHS, USCIS, DOD and officials) moved to dismiss or stay this individual action under the first-to-file rule and under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
- Court concluded many of Plaintiff’s claims substantially overlap with Nio and stayed Counts I–IV, VI–VIII pending resolution of Nio, but allowed Plaintiff’s discrete claim that DOD demanded renunciation of his Indian citizenship to proceed.
- The Court dismissed Plaintiff’s breach of contract claim (Count V) for failure to plead a specific contractual promise and because monetary damages/promotions are unavailable remedies against the government for enlistment contracts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Application of the first-to-file rule / whether case should be stayed | Plaintiff is not identical to Nio class (medical MAVNI) and thus the first-to-file rule shouldn't bar or stay his suit | Defendants: Nio was first-filed; parties and issues substantially overlap so stay is appropriate | Court: Granted stay for most claims—parties and issues substantially similar; medical MAVNI included in Nio class, so Counts I–IV, VI–VIII stayed pending Nio |
| Claim alleging DOD demanded renunciation of Indian citizenship (statelessness risk) | Plaintiff alleges a discrete individual injury from alleged DOD demand to renounce foreign citizenship that could render him stateless and subject to removal | Defendants: Issue relates to naturalization processing and overlaps with Nio | Court: Allowed this discrete renunciation claim to proceed (not encompassed by Nio) |
| Breach of enlistment contract (Count V) | Plaintiff contends DOD’s actions created unlawful hurdles breaching enlistment contract; seeks specific enforcement, promotion and up to $10,000 in damages | Defendants: Plaintiff fails to plead a specific contractual promise; statutory scheme does not guarantee adjudication timetable, promotion, or money damages for enlistment contract breaches | Court: Dismissed Count V for failure to plead specific contractual obligations and because monetary/promotional relief is unavailable against the government |
| Equitable estoppel / statutory right to naturalize (Counts IV & VI) | Plaintiff seeks estoppel to prevent DOD from causing USCIS to withhold adjudication and asserts statutory right to naturalize under INA/APA/Constitution | Defendants: Equitable estoppel cannot award citizenship; government estoppel requires affirmative misconduct which is lacking | Court: Stayed estoppel and statutory-naturalization claims (Counts IV, VI) pending Nio but found plaintiff plausibly alleged factual basis for estoppel so claim not dismissed on merits |
Key Cases Cited
- INS v. Pangilinan, 486 U.S. 875 (1988) (federal courts lack power to confer citizenship absent statutory authorization)
- TPM v. XXX, 91 F.3d 1 (1st Cir.) (first-to-file rule concerns: avoid wasted resources and conflicting judgments)
- Pride v. Correa, 719 F.3d 1130 (9th Cir. 2013) (compare relief and central issues to determine substantial similarity for first-to-file rule)
- Jablon v. United States, 657 F.2d 1064 (9th Cir. 1981) (money damages are not available for government breach of an enlistment contract)
- Qualls v. Rumsfeld, 357 F. Supp. 2d 274 (D.D.C. 2005) (apply common-law contract principles to military enlistment contracts)
- Brooks v. AIG SunAmerica, 480 F.3d 579 (1st Cir.) (plaintiff must plead the specific contractual promises breached to survive a motion to dismiss)