DaVinci Aircraft, Inc. v. United States, 061219 FED9, 17-55719
|Opinion Judge:||PAEZ, Circuit Judge|
|Party Name:||DaVinci Aircraft, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. United States of America; Michael Christmas, individual and official capacity; Rodney Lewis, individual and official capacity; Joel S. Russell, individual and official capacity; Does, 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants-Appellees.|
|Attorney:||Abraham Richard Wagner (argued), Law Offices of Abraham Wagner, Los Angeles, California; David M. Baum, Baum Law Corporation, Los Angeles, California; for Plaintiff-Appellant. David Pinchas (argued), Assistant United States Attorney; Dorothy A. Schouten, Chief, Civil Division; Nicola T. Hanna, Un...|
|Judge Panel:||Before: Richard A. Paez, Barrington D. Parker, and Richard R. Clifton, Circuit Judges.|
|Case Date:||June 12, 2019|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit|
Argued and Submitted November 13, 2018 Pasadena, California
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Christina A. Snyder, District Judge, Presiding D.C. No. 2:16-cv-05864-CAS-JC
Abraham Richard Wagner (argued), Law Offices of Abraham Wagner, Los Angeles, California; David M. Baum, Baum Law Corporation, Los Angeles, California; for Plaintiff-Appellant.
David Pinchas (argued), Assistant United States Attorney; Dorothy A. Schouten, Chief, Civil Division; Nicola T. Hanna, United States Attorney; United States Attorney's Office, Los Angeles, California; for Defendant-Appellee.
Before: Richard A. Paez, Barrington D. Parker, [*] and Richard R. Clifton, Circuit Judges.
Federal Tort Claims Act / Bivens
The panel affirmed the district court's dismissal of all of the claims of DaVinci Aircraft, Inc., alleging conversion and other common law torts against the United States and several U.S. Air Force employees; and remanded so that the district court may transfer the action to the Court of Federal Claims, if so requested.
U.S. Air Force agents seized ten military Global Positioning Systems antennas from DaVinci. DaVinci sought damages under the Federal Tort Claims Act ("FTCA") and Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).
In support of its abuse of process and conversion claims, DaVinci alleged that the United States and its agents conspired to fraudulently and wrongfully coerce DaVinci to surrender the antennas to the Air Force without due process or just compensation.
The panel held that DaVinci's abuse of process claim was barred by section 2680(c) of the FTCA, which bars any "claim arising in respect of . . . the detention of any goods, merchandise, or other property by any officer of customs or excise or any other law enforcement officer." 26 U.S.C. § 2680(c). The panel held that the exception applied even though the antennas were permanently, rather than temporarily, detained; and applied whether or not the property was seized as a part of a criminal investigation. The panel further held that because the antennas were not seized "solely" for the purpose of forfeiture, paragraphs (1)-(4) to section 2680(c) through the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000 did not rewaive sovereign immunity to allow DaVinci's abuse of process claim. The panel held that the same logic applied to prohibit DaVinci's conversion claim because it was based on the allegedly illegal seizure of goods.
The panel held that at the very least, DaVinci could seek reimbursement for the price it paid for the antennas at the Court of Federal Claims. The panel further held that DaVinci could proceed in the Court of Federal Claims under the Tucker Act through a takings claim under the Fifth Amendment.
DaVinci sued individual defendants in their individual capacities. The panel held that because DaVinci voluntarily dismissed the case against the three named individuals and never amended the complaint to include any others, DaVinci's Bivens claims against the individual defendants were not part of this appeal and did not exist. The panel further held that the only remaining defendant remaining was the United States, and the district court properly dismissed the Bivens claims against the United States for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
PAEZ, Circuit Judge
In 2014, United States Air Force agents seized ten military Global Positioning System ("GPS") antennas from DaVinci Aircraft, Inc. ("DaVinci"), allegedly under the guise of the Espionage Act, 18 U.S.C. § 793. DaVinci responded by filing this action alleging conversion and other common law tort claims against the United States and several U.S. Air Force employees. DaVinci seeks damages under the Federal Tort Claims Act ("FTCA"), ch. 753, Title IV, 60 Stat. 842 (codified as amended in scattered sections of 28 U.S.C.), and Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).
The FTCA allows parties to pursue certain claims against the United States in federal court for injury arising out of the negligent or wrongful conduct of any federal employee acting within the scope of the employee's employment. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b)(1), 2674, 2679(b)(1). This waiver of sovereign immunity is significant but limited with certain exceptions. See 28 U.S.C. § 2680. Separately, the Tucker Act grants exclusive jurisdiction to the Court of Federal Claims for actions "sounding in contract" against the United States. Snyder & Associates Acquisitions LLC v. United States (Snyder), 859 F.3d 1152, 1156 n.2 (9th Cir.), opinion amended on reh'g, 868 F.3d 1048 (9th Cir. 2017) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1)). In this case, we must delineate between claims that must be filed in the district court and those that must be filed in the Court of Federal Claims.
The district court granted the government's motion to dismiss all of DaVinci's claims against the United States for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We have appellate jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Although we affirm, we also remand so that the district court may transfer this action to the Court of Federal Claims, provided DaVinci so requests. See McGuire v. United States, 550 F.3d 903, 914 (9th Cir. 2008).
DaVinci is a California-based corporation that purchases and sells new and used parts in the aviation and aerospace industries. DaVinci's problems arose out of its acquisition and the U.S. Air Force's subsequent confiscation of ten GPS antennas for the AGM-158 Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile ("the Antennas").
Ball Aerospace & Technologies, Inc. manufactured the Antennas under a subcontract from Lockheed Martin, a U.S. Air Force prime contractor. Under the subcontract, the Antennas were considered unclassified hardware and therefore not subject to the security requirements of the Department of Defense or U.S. Air Force for classified data and hardware. They did not require demilitarization and were authorized by the U.S. Air Force for public sale, excluding export, around March 2013. Avatar Unlimited purchased the Antennas from Lockheed Martin as part of a bulk sale of surplus parts, and then resold them to BPB Surplus, who then sold them to DaVinci for $3, 000.
In September 2013, four agents from the U.S. Air Force Office of Special Investigations visited DaVinci's office to inspect and discuss the Antennas. After the inspection, Special Agent Laura Voyatzis demanded that DaVinci surrender the equipment. DaVinci refused to surrender the Antennas without the agents providing authority for their demands. When asked for the selling price, DaVinci quoted $1.25 million for the Antennas, after which the Special Agents left without further action.
Between April and June 2014, DaVinci corresponded with agents at Eglin Air Force Base over the Antennas. Contracting Officer Rodney Lewis initially offered $7, 359 for the Antennas, but DaVinci declined and countered with a discounted price of $750, 000 and later $600, 000. DaVinci and the Air Force employees never agreed upon a price.
In September 2014, Special Agent Joel S. Russell and two Air Force Officers arrived at DaVinci's office and demanded that DaVinci surrender the Antennas under compulsion of law. Russell produced a letter dated a week earlier and signed by both Lewis and Michael Christmas, Special Agent in Charge of the Department of the Air Force, Office of Special Investigations. The letter stated that the "delivery of the said items by [DaVinci's owner] and DaVinci Aircraft is made under compulsion of law pursuant to 18 USC 793(d)[, the Espionage Act, ] and is made without prejudice to any claims by [DaVinci's owner] and/or DaVinci Aircraft for their fair market value."
In response to Russell's demands and the threat of criminal prosecution for failure to comply, DaVinci surrendered the Antennas. Russell provided a signed acknowledgment of "Receipt For Items Taken Under Compulsion" to DaVinci. That same day, DaVinci delivered to Eglin Air Force Base an invoice for the Antennas in the amount of $1.25 million.
After exhausting the FTCA administrative process, DaVinci filed a complaint in the district court against the United States, Christmas, Lewis, and 10 unnamed individual defendants in their official capacities. The United States filed a motion to dismiss under...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP