United States v. Buiges
| Decision Date | 30 October 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 80 Civ. 7005.,80 Civ. 7005. |
| Citation | 524 F. Supp. 1288 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Bartholomew BUIGES and Youth in Government, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
John S. Martin, Jr., U. S. Atty., New York City, for plaintiff; Harvey J. Wolkoff, Asst. U. S. Atty., New York City, of counsel.
Iannuzzi, Russo & Iannuzzi, New York City, for defendant.
The United States instituted this lawsuit pursuant to the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 231 et seq., to recover a sum of money it paid to defendant Youth in Government ("YIG") under what the government alleges was a false claim filed with the Department of Agriculture by defendants YIG and Bartholomew Buiges. The defendants counterclaimed for an amount they allege the government owes them but has wrongly withheld. The government now moves to dismiss defendants' counterclaim on the ground that it is barred by sovereign immunity. Defendants oppose the government's motion and, in the alternative, request that the entire case be transferred to the Court of Claims.
YIG is a corporation, of which Buiges is the Chairman and controlling officer. YIG entered into a contract with the Agriculture Department, pursuant to the National School Lunch Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1751 et seq., to provide free lunches to impoverished children living in Harlem.
On August 29, 1975, Buiges, on behalf of YIG, submitted a claim to the Department of Agriculture for more than $327,000 in payment for providing nearly 331,000 lunches during June, July, and August of 1975. The government allegedly paid YIG about $143,000 of that amount. After conducting an audit and an investigation of YIG's business, the government concluded that YIG had greatly overstated the number of lunches it had served and inflated the amount of reimbursable expenses it claimed. The government's complaint alleges that YIG was entitled to a total of only $92,000 for the lunches it actually provided and its allowable expenses and that, consequently, YIG already has collected nearly $51,000 more than the amount to which it is entitled.
Presumably upon consideration of the government's evidence, a grand jury returned an indictment against Buiges and several of YIG's putative employees. Buiges was convicted after a jury found him guilty on all three counts of the indictment, namely, filing false claims against the United States, aiding and abetting in the filing of false claims against the United States, and conspiracy to defraud the United States, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 287, 371. Buiges was sentenced to two years incarceration followed by two years probation. His conviction was affirmed on appeal. United States v. Buigues sic, 568 F.2d 269 (2d Cir. 1978).
This action and Buiges counterclaim followed. The United States now contends that the counterclaim must be dismissed because the government is immune from such a suit in the district court. The United States "is immune from suit save as it consents to be sued ... and the terms of its consent to be sued in any court define that court's jurisdiction to entertain the suit." United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392, 399, 96 S.Ct. 948, 953, 47 L.Ed.2d 114 (1976), quoting United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584, 586, 61 S.Ct. 767, 769, 85 L.Ed. 1058 (1941).
Such an express waiver of immunity is found in the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(2), which authorizes contract actions against the government in the district courts limited, however, to claims not in excess of $10,000. This court therefore lacks subject matter jurisdiction over defendants' $184,000 counterclaim. The Court of Claims, however, does have power to hear defendants' claim since the Tucker Act confers jurisdiction on that court over contract actions against the government without regard to the amount in controversy, 28 U.S.C. § 1491. Clearly then, it is there that defendants must look to litigate their claim.
Anticipating this conclusion, defendants alternatively request that the court transfer the entire lawsuit to the Court of Claims to be tried in one proceeding. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gulf Coast Rice Producers Ass'n v. Block
...also Russell v. Law Enforcement Assistance Administration of the United States of America, 637 F.2d 354 (5th Cir.1981); U.S.A. v. Buiges, 524 F.Supp. 1288 (S.D.N.Y.1981). It is, therefore, ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that this case be TRANSFERRED to the Claims Court; and defendants' motio......
-
U.S. v. Chilstead Bldg. Co., Inc.
...Act, because breach of contract claims seeking more than $10,000 can only be brought in the Court of Claims. See United States v. Buiges, 524 F.Supp. 1288, 1289 (S.D.N.Y.); 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(2). Since defendant's claim arises out of a contract with the United States and seeks more than $1......
-
Miss America Pageant, Inc. v. Penthouse Intern., Ltd.
... ... PENTHOUSE INTERNATIONAL, LTD., Defendant ... Civ. A. No. 79-3410 ... United States District Court, D. New Jersey ... October 30, 1981. 524 F. Supp. 1281 ... ...
-
Gardiner v. Virgin Islands Water and Power Authority
...that statute did not provide the court with authority to transfer the case. The court also relied on the case of United States v. Buiges, 524 F.Supp. 1288 (S.D.N.Y.1981). That case is inapplicable to the instant case because it was decided on the basis of repealed statute 28 U.S.C. Sec. 140......