vonLUSCH v. Hoffmaster
Decision Date | 10 May 1966 |
Docket Number | Civ. No. 17120. |
Citation | 253 F. Supp. 633 |
Parties | Richard A. vonLUSCH and Marie vonLusch, his wife v. Meredith R. HOFFMASTER, Regional Director, Small Business Administration. Small Business Administration, an Agency of the United States of America created by Act of Congress. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Maryland |
Leonard J. Kerpelman, Baltimore, Md., for plaintiffs.
Thomas J. Kenney, U. S. Atty., and Thomas P. Curran, Asst. U. S. Atty., Baltimore, Md., for defendants.
The complaint in this case seeks a mandatory injunction against the Small Business Administration and its Regional Director requiring them "to cancel and rescind their requirement that the Plaintiffs secure a 100% performance bond and labor and materials payment bond as a condition of the grant of a loan to the Plaintiffs" under 15 U.S.C.A. § 636. Defendants have moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Two provisions of the Small Business Act are particularly important in this case. Section 634(b) (1) provides:
Section 636(a) (7) provides:
The loan which plaintiffs seek is a "direct loan" under subsection 636(a).
The complaint alleges that plaintiffs, who are engaged in the business of selling antiques at retail, applied to defendants for a loan to aid them in enlarging their plant; that since plaintiff Richard vonLusch is a graduate engineer with experience in building construction, he intended that he himself would design, supervise and construct the proposed addition to plaintiffs' present building, at a cost less than a building contractor would charge; that the loan was approved in the amount of $68,500 upon condition that plaintiffs supply a 100% bond guaranteeing performance of the proposed construction and payment for labor and materials used therein; that for various reasons plaintiffs have been unable to obtain the required bond; and that the requirement that such a bond be furnished is arbitrary, capricious and unlawful.
The Small Business Administration, a non-incorporated federal agency, is an integral part of the United States government. Small Business Adm'n v. McClellan, 364 U.S. 446, 81 S.Ct. 191, 5 L.Ed.2d 200 (1960). It has the full sovereign immunity of the United States unless such immunity has been waived by congressional action. United States v. Mel's Lockers, Inc., 10 Cir., 346 F.2d 168 (1965). When sovereign immunity is waived by Congress, the consent may be limited and the jurisdiction of the courts in which suit can be maintained may be defined by the legislation. United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584, 587, 61 S.Ct. 767, 85 L.Ed. 1058 (1941); United States v. Mel's Lockers, Inc., supra, and cases cited therein.
Despite the prohibition against injunctions contained in 15 U.S.C.A. 634 (b) (1), plaintiffs argue that this suit for an injunction may be maintained under section 10 of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C.A. § 1009, which provides:
Plaintiffs' reliance on this section overlooks the two exceptions contained in the introductory paragraph, which limits all succeeding paragraphs.
(1) The Act creating the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Jets Services, Inc. v. Hoffman
...rev'd on alt. grounds sub nom. Allen M. Campbell Co. v. Lloyd Wood Constr. Co., 446 F.2d 261 (5th Cir. 1971); vonLusch v. Hoffmaster, 253 F.Supp. 633, 634, 635 (D.Md.1966). Therefore, the Court is precluded as a matter of law from granting injunctive relief against the SBA defendants becaus......
-
Mar v. Kleppe
...Co. v. Kleppe, 360 F.Supp. 729 (E.D.Wis.1973); Analytical Systems Corp. v. SBA, 346 F.Supp. 1149 (D.Mass.1972); von Lusch v. Hoffmaster, 253 F.Supp. 633 (D.Md.1966). But see, Dubrow v. SBA, 345 F.Supp. 4 (C.D.Cal.1972) and Simpkins v. Davidson, 302 F.Supp. 456 (S.D.N.Y.1969), suggesting tha......
-
iThrive Health, LLC v. Carranza (In re iThrive Health, LLC), Case No. 19-25413-TJC
...language of § 634(b)(1). Id. at 771. The District Court in Maryland reached a similar conclusion in vonLusch v. Hoffmaster , 253 F. Supp. 633, 635 (D. Md. 1966) (holding that the APA does not circumvent the no-injunction provision of § 634(b)(1) ).Debtor relies on Ulstein Mar., Ltd. v. Unit......
-
Dubrow v. Small Business Administration
...enjoin the Administrator of the SBA. While some cases have held that the Administrator cannot be enjoined, see, e.g., vonLusch v. Hoffmaster, 253 F.Supp. 633 (D.Md.1966); U. S. v. Mel's Lockers, Inc., 346 F.2d 168 (10th Cir.1965), those cases were predicated on the specific finding that the......